Quezada v. Hart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 51 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Civil Code section 3333 provides that ‘[f]or the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, the measure of damages ... is the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not.’ Although the statute does not preclude damages for emotional suffering as a consequence of tortious conduct, California courts have limited emotional suffering damages to cases involving either physical impact and injury to plaintiff or intentional wrongdoing by defendant. Damages for emotional suffering are allowed when the tortfeasor’s conduct, although negligent as a matter of law, contains elements of intentional malfeasance or bad faith.” (Id. at p. 761.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Branch v. Homefed Bank · Smith v. Superior Court

2. “Although the statute does not preclude damages for emotional suffering as a consequence of tortious conduct, California courts have limited emotional suffering damages to cases involving either physical impact and injury to plaintiff or intentional wrongdoing by defendant. Damages for emotional suffering are allowed when the tortfeasor’s conduct, although negligent as a matter of law, contains elements of intentional malfeasance or bad faith. The more significant recent cases include Jarchow v. Transamerica Title Insurance Co. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 917 , 122 Cal.Rptr. 470 ...; Crisci v. Security Insurance Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 425 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 13 , 426 P.2d 173 ... Gruenberg v. Aetna Insurance Co. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 566 , 108 Cal.Rptr. 480 , 510 P.2d 1032 . . . Kendall Yacht Corp. v. United California Bank (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 949 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 848 . . . and Windeler v. Scheers Jewelers (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 844 , 88 Cal.Rptr. 39 ... see also, Acadia, California, Ltd. v. Herbert (1960) 54 Cal.2d 328 , 5 Cal.Rptr. 686 , 353 P.2d 294 ... Cases such as Crisci and Gruenberg, supra, however, involve bad faith and are therefore really intentional tort cases, and although Jarchow, supra, declared that negligent infliction of emotional distress was actionable, the case involved a willful refusal to take action to clear title. The jury in Jarchow found that the cause of plaintiffs’ emotional distress was “defendant’s negligence and bad faith” evidenced by “Transamerica’s utter failure to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Deno v. Transamerica Title Insurance

3. “instances of intentional and unreasonable infliction of distress by means of extreme and outrageous invasions of tranquillity,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Davis v. Walbrook Ins. Co.