Roseberry v. Starkovich’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 1994 · most notably 12 Cal. 3d 382 - Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974), Deems v. Western Maryland Railway Co. (1967)
4 federal appellate · 35 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 20 Ill. 2d 406 - Dini v. Naiditch · Hitaffer v. Argonne Co. · Montgomery v. Stephan · 88 Ga. App. 519 - Brown v. Georgia-Tennessee Coaches, Inc. · Hoekstra v. Helgeland
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“So far as we have discovered, we have never been called upon to consider the right of either the husband or wife to recover for negligent injury to or loss of consortium * * *. Appellant argues that if an intentional interference with consortium is actionable, why should not a negligent injury be equally cognizable at law? The best answer to the question is that while the one is a direct injury to consortium, a relationship entitled to protection under the law, the other is purely a coincidental result occurring without purpose or intent of the tortfeasor. * * * Most states, while allowing recovery by a wife for intentional interference with consortium, have no difficulty denying a recovery for negligent injury thereto.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When the foregoing logic and reasoning, which we find . most convincing, is considered along with the uncertain and indefinite nature of a wife’s claim for negligent interference with her right of consortium; the nature of the recovery as discussed above; the possibilities opened for double recovery if the right is recognized; the fact that the legislature has not seen fit to speak on the subject; and the great weight of authority developed since 1950, we must conclude that the trial court was correct in dismissing the action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““[I]f the injury deprives the marital community of the earnings or services of the spouse, that is an injury to the marital community; likewise there is a loss to the community where the community funds are expended for hospital and medical expenses, etc. Since the husband is usually the breadwinner, contributing definite earnings, the loss to the marital community resulting from an injury to him is more obvious * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rodgers v. Ferguson
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.