In Re Eastern Airlines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2001
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1407 · 49 U.S.C. § 40101 (Air Traffic Management System Performance Improvement Act of 1996)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Erie Co v. Tompkins · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Bonner v. City of Prichard
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"COUNT III-EASTERN'S ENTIRE WANT OF CARE [3] In Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So.2d 188, 189 (Fla. 1950), the Florida Supreme Court stated: We do not feel constrained to extend [the rule barring recovery for mental pain and anguish unconnected with physical injury] to cases founded purely in tort, where the wrongful act is such as to reasonably imply malice, or where, from the entire want of care of attention to duty, or great indifference to the persons, property, or rights of others, such malice will be imputed as would justify the assessment of exemplary or punitive damages. In the previously-cited case of Brown v. Cadillac Motor Car Division, 468 So.2d 903 (Fla. 1985), a negligence case, the Florida Supreme Court noted that its `ruling does not disturb any prior decisions allowing [damages for psychological trauma] in intentional tort cases.' Brown, 468 So.2d at 904 n.[*]. Plaintiffs, therefore, argue that Count III, entitled `Entire Want of Care', states a cause of action under Kirksey . Defendant counters that Kirksey did not establish an independent cause of action for `entire want of care.' Upon review of the relevant case law, this Court concludes, as Defendants contends, that Kirksey did not establish an independent cause of action in tort. When Kirksey was decided, Florida had not yet recognized an independent cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Generally, recovery for emotional distress alone was barred. In Kirksey , however, the Florida Su”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Le transporteur est responsable du dommage survenu en cas de mort, de blessure ou de toute autre lesion corporelle subie par un voyageur... .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he controlling phrase for the purpose of interpretation would seem to be "ou de toute autre lesion corporelle" (or any other bodily injury) for both the terms mort (death) and blessure (wound) are by necessity incorporated within it. As is done in American law, French law distinguishes sharply between bodily injury (lesion corporelle) and mental injury (lesion mentale). Lesion corporelle has been defined in a leading work to mean "an infringement of physical integrity (l'atteinte a l'integrite physique)." The definition gives not the slightest indication that mental injuries are to be included within its domain. An examination of the meaning of the words lesion and mentale (as defined in Cassell's New French-English, English-French Dictionary, 1962) reveals the meaning of the phrase "lesion mentale" to be mental wrong or injury. The two phrases appear to be mutually exclusive and therefore, sound construction compels the court to attribute to "lesion corporelle" its normal import only, excluding mental injury. (Footnote omitted.)”
1 later decision 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.