McGarry v. Pielech’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 24 state decisions

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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The trial justice must consider, in the exercise of his [or her] independent judgment, all the material evidence in the case, in the light of his [or her] charge to the jury and pass on its weight and the credibility of the witnesses, determine what evidence is believable, and, decide whether the verdict rendered by the jury responds to the evidence presented and does justice between the parties." McGarry v. Pielech , 47 A.3d 271 , 280 (R.I. 2012) (quoting Morgera v. Hanover Insurance Co. , 655 A.2d 698 , 698 (R.I. 1995) (mem.) ).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bruce Moten · Willie Battle v. State of Rhode Island.

2. “[H]e earned an undergraduate degree in economics, and later an MBA degree----[H]e worked as a teacher at [the town’s high school] from 1969 to 1970, but left to work in the trucking industry — a more lucrative field — -where he remained for twenty-six years until he reactivated his teaching certificates in 1996. In 1997, [the] plaintiff began substitute teaching in the [town’s] school system. The plaintiff testified that upon learning of a probable teaching vacancy in [the town’s] [m]iddle [s]chool’s English Department for the 1998-1999 school year, he enrolled in two English courses, and in July 1998, he obtained a certificate to teach English.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dobkin v. University of Baltimore School of Law

3. “... [Tjhere was evidence that [the] defendant, possibly through negligence, misrepresented to the Commission that [the] plaintiff was not qualified to teach English. These factors, combined with the evidentiary inference that the missing records were unfavorable to defendant,[ 13 ] to wit, the official explanation for not hiring [the] plaintiff was false (which the jury could decide with or without the inference), could [have] provefn] that the real reason he was not hired was his age.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dobkin v. University of Baltimore School of Law