Nelson v. Progressive Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 2018
16 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
Relies on Kilduff v. Adams, Inc. · Kewin v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company · City of Whittier v. Whittier Fuel & Marine Corp. · State v. Andrews · Chizmar v. MacKie
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the usual rule is that ... [fraud] damages are limited to such pecuniary loss, with no recovery for emotional distress”); Steven J. Gaynor,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Of the courts allowing recovery, many have adopted hybrid approaches which allow recovery for emotional distress in fraud actions under some circumstances. They impose additional requirements that the plaintiff must satisfy before recovery is allowed. Examples include limiting recovery to severe emotional distress, requiring that the tortious conduct be committed in a wanton or malicious manner, requiring that bodily illness or injury be highly foreseeable, and allowing emotional distress damages as part of exemplary or punitive damages. [ Id. at 868 (footnote omitted).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[i]t would be anomalous to relax the severity requirement in economic torts where emotional distress is an unintended by-product of the wrong, while maintaining it in intentional infliction of emotional distress cases where such emotional distress is the only element of damage. Imposing a threshold severity requirement is thus consistent with our case law and the trial court did not err in so ruling. [ 976 P. 2d at 868 .]”
1 later decision 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.