Metz v. United Technologies Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
754 F.2d 63 · 1985
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 2008 · most notably Rogers v. Grimaldi (1989), Matthews v. CTI Container Transport International Inc. (1989)
22 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 341 So. 2d 332 - Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. · Chesapeake Ohio Railway Company v. Addie Kelly · 371 So. 2d 1120 - Folse v. Fakouri · O'Rourke v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. · 395 So. 2d 310 - Philippe v. Browning Arms Co.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n computing the damages recoverable for the deprivation of future benefits, the principle of limiting the recovery to compensation requires that adequate allowance be made, according to circumstances, for the earning power of money. . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Profits of plaintiff’s business are admissible in evidence for the purpose of establishing the pecuniary value of that diminution of earning capacity, so long as such profits are not uncertain and speculative and their loss is a direct result of plaintiff s injury____ Where plaintiff’s business profits depend for the most part on the employment of capital or the labor of others, lost profits are not a proper measure of plaintiffs loss.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Weil v. Seltzer“On retrial, the trial court need not use any particular formula or method of discounting. After considering the relevant economic evidence it may choose to offset inflation and interest, or it may choose to have the jury find and apply an appropriate rate. All that is essential is to reach a result that properly takes into account the time value of money.”
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.