Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 540 F.2d 777 - Solomon v. Warren

Solomon v. Warren’s Empirical Analysis

540 F.2d 777 · 1976

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
10
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

49 federal appellate · 3 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Tringali v. Hathaway Machinery Co. (1986), McKay v. Rockwell International Corp. (1983)

49 federal appellate · 3 district · 11 state decisions — followed in 10 states

44019761980199020002010decided

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 McAllister v. United States · Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet · In Re Disbarment of Isserman · International Ass'n of Machinists v. Duckworth · Michigan Central Railroad v. Vreeland

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

  1. “While in the garden variety of claims under survival statutes, including the Florida Statute — fatal injuries sustained in automobile accidents and the like — the usual sequence is impact followed by pain and suffering, we are unable to discern any reason based on either law or logic for rejecting a claim because in this case as to at least part of the suffering, this sequence was reversed. We will not disallow the claims for this item of damages on that ground.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]o reverse the sequence is to abandon the rationale of the impact rule: any compensated mental pain and suffering must be caused by a physical impact. The airplane crash and the Levins' resulting death were not the "but for" cause of whatever anxiety they may have suffered prior to their deaths. Their prior fears would not have been diminished had the plane leveled off at the last moment and avoided disaster altogether. This is because the Levins' anxiety for their own safety and their children's future well being was caused by the anticipation of death, not by the actual crash that presumably killed them. It is not enough that some impact accompany the mental suffering, the impact must cause the fears if they are to be compensable. Only then can courts measure mental duress by some means other than sheer speculation.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.