Swerdlick v. Koch’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 16 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Richard Iacobucci v. Willard Boulter Richard Iacobucci (1999), Wilkinson v. State Crime Laboratory Commission (2002)
4 federal appellate · 16 district · 28 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 Katz v. United States · Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc. · Fudge v. Penthouse International, Ltd. · D'Ambra v. United States · Banks v. Bowen's Landing Corp.
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by 'malice,' or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, 'Outrageous!' " (Emphasis added); see also Swerdlick , 721 A.2d at 862 ; Champlin , 478 A.2d at 988 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"(1) the conduct must be intentional or in reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress, (2) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous , (3) there must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress, and (4) the emotional distress in question must be severe." Swerdlick v. Koch , 721 A.2d 849 , 862 (R.I. 1998) (emphasis added) (quoting Champlin v. Washington Trust Co. of Westerly , 478 A.2d 985 , 989 (R.I. 1984) ).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) The right to be secure from unreasonable intrusion upon one’s physical solitude or seclusion; (i) In order to recover for violation of this right, it must be established that: (A) It was an invasion of something that is entitled to be private or would be expected to be private; (B) The invasion was or is offensive or objectionable to a reasonable man; although, (ii) The person who discloses the information need not benefit from the disclosure.”
2 later decisions 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.