Marsh v. Green’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Matters of policy are for the Legislature and, whether wise or unwise, legislative policies are of no concern to the courts.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cline v. Ashland, Inc. · Willis v. Kincaid

2. “"In [ American Legion Post No. 57 v.] Leahey, [ 681 So.2d 1337 (Ala.1996),] this Court criticized § 12-21-45 for, among other things, its `apparent attempt to change the law of evidence without expressing the effect on the law of damages.' 681 So.2d at 1346 . This silence can be viewed as a virtue, not a vice, because it leaves to the courts their historical function of determining the limits of recoverable damages, through an evolving common law. This statutory silence gives both a plaintiff and a defendant latitude to explore various arguments about windfalls. A defendant may desire to argue that reimbursement of the plaintiff for medical expenses already paid by an insurer is a double recovery. On the other hand, a plaintiff may wish to argue that the defendant reaps a windfall unless additional damages are awarded, beyond the mere expense of the insurance or other collateral-source benefits, so as to compensate the plaintiff for having the discipline and foresight to devote money or earning power to paying the expense of acquiring the insurance or other collateral-source benefits rather than paying for some immediate gratification. Any review of matters concerning the validity or permissible effect of such arguments must await a proper case. A verdict form dealing specifically with collateral-source reimbursement would facilitate such a review. "”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Rutherford v. United States · 884 So. 2d 801 - Mobile Infirmary Medical Center v. Hodgen

3. “`[T]he courts generally have held that benefits received by the plaintiff from a source wholly independent of and collateral to the wrongdoer will not diminish the damages otherwise recoverable from the wrongdoer. . . . [T]he wrongdoer cannot take advantage of the contracts or other relation that may exist between the injured person and third persons. Thus, while a plaintiff's recovery under the ordinary negligence rule is limited to damages which will make him whole, the collateral source rule allows a plaintiff further recovery under certain circumstances even though he has suffered no loss.' [¶] 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages § 566 (1988) (citations omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 185 Cal. App. 4th 1313 - Yanez v. SOMA Environmental Engineering, Inc. · 884 So. 2d 801 - Mobile Infirmary Medical Center v. Hodgen