Clegg v. Butler’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 16 district · 95 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Products Corp. (1998), Kattar v. Demoulas (2000)
6 federal appellate · 16 district · 95 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 Polaroid Corp. v. the Travelers Indemnity Co. · DiMarzo v. American Mutual Insurance · Spring v. Geriatric Authority of Holyoke · Leardi v. Brown · Entrialgo v. Twin City Dodge, Inc.
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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]f the court finds for the petitioner, recovery shall be in the amount of actual damages or twenty-five dollars, whichever is greater; or up to three but not less than two times such amount if the court finds that the use or employment of the act or practice was a willful or knowing violation ... or that refusal to grant relief upon demand was made in bad faith .... For the purposes of this chapter, the amount of actual damages to be multiplied by the court shall be the amount of the judgment on all claims arising out of the same and underlying transaction or occurrence. ...” (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The italicized portion of this statute was inserted by St. 1989, c. 580, §1, which was apparently enacted in response to cases such as Bertassi v. Allstate Ins. Co., 402 Mass. 366 (1988), Trempe v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 20 Mass.App.Ct. 448 (1985), and Wallace v. American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 22 Mass.App.Ct. 938 (1986), which limited those damages subject to multiplication under c. 93A to loss of use damages, measured by the interest lost on the amount the insurer wrongfully failed to provide the claimant... This amendment greatly increased the potential liability of an insurer who wilfully, knowingly or in bad faith engages in unfair business practices.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The multiple damages provided under c. 93A are punitive damages intended to penalize insurers who unreasonably and unfairly force claimants into litigation by wrongfully withholding insurance proceeds. As part of a statutory scheme meant to encourage out-of-court resolutions, the statute does not punish settling insurers by placing the entire settlement award at risk of multiplication.”
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.