Rowell v. Holt’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 593 So. 2d 500 - McCain v. Florida Power Corporation · 143 Ill. 2d 296 - Corgan v. Muehling · Cason v. Baskin · St. Elizabeth Hospital v. Garrard · S. H. Kress & Co. v. Powell
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]xceptions to the rule have been narrowly created and defined in a certain very narrow class of cases in which the foreseeability and gravity of the emotional injury involved, and lack of countervailing policy concerns, have surmounted the policy rationale undergirding application of the impact rule.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“before a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligence of another, the emotional distress suffered must flow from physical injuries sustained in an impact.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Considering and applying the reasoning employed in Kush and Tanner , we determine that the impact rule should not preclude recovery of noneconomic damages in the instant case. In rendering this decision, we approve the reasoning of the district court below that the special professional duty created by the relationship between Rowell and his attorney, coupled with the clear foreseeability of emotional harm resulting from a protracted period of wrongful pretrial incarceration, render application of the impact rule unjust and without an underlying justification in the factual circumstances here. Moreover, we are persuaded by the petitioner's arguments that the facts presented in the instant action neither implicate nor call forth the legal and policy concerns that have been historically advanced as justification for the application of the impact rule." [e.s.]”
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.