Neufeld v. Neufeld’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Margot Rendall-Speranza v. Edward A. Nassim (1997), 147 F. Supp. 2d 180 - Gonzalez v. Bratton (2001)
1 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Hanna v. Plumer · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Murphy v. American Home Products Corp. · Engle v. Isaac · Howell v. New York Post 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The New York courts have adopted the rule set out in the Restatement that “[o]ne who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress ...” Comment d to [the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46] provides that “[liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable.”... Defendants’ conduct “must consist of more that mere insults, indignities and annoyances and must be so shocking and outrageous as to exceed all reasonable bounds of decency.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is limited to conduct that occurred within the one-year period immediately preceding the commencement of the action. To hold otherwise would subject defendants to never-ending liability for such claims, which could at any time be triggered by non-extreme, non-outrageous, and non-tortious acts. Merely alleging that such non-aetionablé conduct was an extension of actionable conduct would resurrect stale time-barred conduct.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“And plaintiff need not establish that the Eastern District of New York has ‘the most substantial contacts to the dispute; rather it is sufficient that a substantial part of the events occurred [here], even if a greater part of the events occurred elsewhere.' ”). Thus, it is not controlling that another judicial district has more contacts with the dispute; to sustain the selected venue, it is required only that”
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.