Davis v. Omitowoju’s Empirical Analysis
883 F.2d 1155 · 1989
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 13 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2021 · most notably Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. (1996), Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno (1990)
10 federal appellate · 13 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 13 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 Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Linkletter v. Walker · Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis · Tull v. United States · Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where it is the legislature which has made a rational policy decision in the public interest, as contrasted with a judicial decision which affects only the parties before it, it cannot be said that [a damages cap statute] offends either the terms, the policy or the purpose of the Seventh Amendment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“has generally been applied only when application of the new law would affect rights or obligations existing prior to the change in law,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“As the Fourth Circuit stated in disposing of both the due process and equal protection claims advanced in Boyd v. Bulala, 877 F.2d 1191 (4th Cir.1989), 21 “a limitation on a common law measure of recovery does not violate a fundamental right or create a suspect classification.” Davis did not assert any fundamental right to an uncapped jury verdict, nor could she. Nor has Davis attempted to, nor could she, style herself and all malpractice claimants as a suspect class. Any claim that she asserts must therefore be reviewed under the rational basis test. Id. at 1196 .”
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.