Jack v. Scanlon’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 2005 · most notably Bishop v. Kelly (1988), Caulfield v. Amica Mutual Insurance (1993)
35 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Grayned v. City of Rockford · Roth v. United States · Grayned v. City of Rockford · United States v. Euge · Miller v. Schoene
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]wards of double or triple damages under § 14-295 are not required simply because a defendant has been found to have violated one of the named statutes. Rather such damages are assessed based on the degree of the defendant's culpability.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]wards of double or treble damages under 14-295 are not required simply because a defendant has been found to have violated one of the named statutes. Rather, such damages are assessed based on the degree of the defendant's culpability. As aptly stated in Eustace v. Adley Express Co., [ 1 Conn. Sup. 58 , 59 (1935)], "the imposition of the penalty of double or treble damages should be reserved for cases which involve offenses more serious than simple negligence. Such a penalty should be imposed only where the violation of the rules of the road has been deliberate or at least under conditions which indicate that the defendant was conducting him [or her] self with reckless disregard of the rights of others."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The defendant admitted the allegations of the complaint which asserted liability. His liability, by those assertions, had numerous bases, including acts which amounted to a violation of General Statutes 14-242 for which double or treble damages may be assessed pursuant to 14-295 , as well as other acts of negligence for which double or treble damages are not properly assessed. Since the defendant's admitted liability was based, in part, on a violation of one of the statutes mentioned in 14-295 , double or treble damages could properly be considered by the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.