Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 966 F.2d 166 - Plaisance v. Texaco, Inc.

Plaisance v. Texaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

966 F.2d 166 · 1992

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
5
states following
March 2014
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Chan v. Society Expeditions, Inc. (1994), 430 Pa. Super. 36 - Armstrong v. Paoli Memorial Hospital (1993)

18 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions

310199220002010decided

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 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (Jones Act))

Relies on Gaston v. Flowers Transportation · Plaisance v. Texaco, Inc. · Outten v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. · Stoklosa v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

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

  1. ““The holding in Gaston is limited but instructive. The court recognized that a plaintiff suing for purely emotional injuries could recover if he also suffered physical injury.” Id.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In the en banc decision, the Fifth Circuit reversed on the issue of whether one could recover for damages for purely emotional injuries, and held that the fact that the plaintiff's injury "was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Under ... the “zone of danger” doctrine, plaintiff may recover even though there is no physical contact, so long as the plaintiff (1) witnesses peril or harm to another and (2) is also threatened with physical harm as a consequence of the defendant’s negligence.”
    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.