Walsh v. Chan’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2020
7 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd. · State v. Alston · Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.) · Montalvo v. Lapez
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No-fault benefits, sometimes referred to as personal injury protection benefits, with respect to any accidental harm means: (i) All appropriate and reasonable expenses necessarily incurred for medical, hospital, surgical, professional, nursing, dental, opto-metric, ambulance, prosthetic services, products and accommodations furnished, and x-ray. The foregoing expenses may include any nonmedical remedial care and treatment rendered in accordance with the teachings, faith, or belief of any group which depends for healing upon spiritual means through prayer; (ii) All appropriate and reasonable expenses necessarily incurred for psychiatric, physical, and occupational therapy and rehabilitation; (iii) Monthly earnings loss measured by an amount equal to the lesser of: (I) $900 a month; or (II) The monthly earnings for the period during which the accidental harm results in the inability to engage in available and appropriate gainful activity; (iv) All appropriate and reasonable expenses necessarily incurred as a result of such accidental harm, including, but not limited to: (I) Expenses incurred in obtaining services in substitution of those that the injured or deceased person would have performed not for income but for the benefit of the person or the person’s family up to $800 a month; (II) Funeral expenses not to exceed $1,500; and (III) Attorney’s fees and costs to the extent provided in section 431:10C-211(a); provided that the term, when applied to a no-fault policy issued at”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The intent of the legislature in establishing the medical-rehabilitative limit in the no-fault law was to provide a jurisdictional requirement similar to the $10,000 jurisdictional amount in diversity suits in the federal court: “In order to maintain an action, the claimant must show that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000 (this amount being intended by your committee to be a jurisdictional requirement similar to the $10,000 jurisdictional requirement in federal diversity suits).” Hse. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 187, 1973 House Journal, at 837.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Abolition of tort liability, (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), this article abolishes tort liability of the following persons with respect to accidental harm arising from motor vehicle accidents occurring in this State: (1) Owner, operator or user of an insured motor vehicle; or (2) Operator or user of an uninsured motor vehicle who operates or uses such vehicle without reason to believe it to be an uninsured motor vehicle.”
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.