Scala v. Moore McCormack Lines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
985 F.2d 680 · 1993
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. (1996), Consorti v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1995)
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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. § 157 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 29 U.S.C. § 401 (Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959) · 33 U.S.C. § 901 · 33 U.S.C. § 905 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Pelaes v. United States · Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos · Branum v. Clark · Martell v. Boardwalk Enterprises, Inc.
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 5501. Scope of Review * * * Hi * * (c) Appellate division---- In reviewing a money judgment in an action in which it is contended that the award is excessive or inadequate and that a new trial should have been granted unless a stipulation is entered to a different award, the appellate division shall determine that an award is excessive or inadequate if it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Consistent with the tenet that: [i]n determining whether a particular award is excessive, courts have reviewed awards in other cases involving similar injuries, “bearing in mind that any given judgment depends on a unique set of facts and circumstances.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In determining whether an award is so excessive as to shock the judicial conscience, we look, as a court sitting in diversity, to other jury awards condoned by the courts of the state whose substantive law governs the rights of the parties, in this case New York State. While there are difficulties inherent in comparing one personal injury award to another because differentiating facts in each case ‘limit the precedential value of a court’s treatment of awards in other apparently similar cases,’ we nonetheless have the responsibility to ensure ‘that the damage award does not exceed that which could be sustained were the case before the highest court of the state whose substantive law gives rise to the claim.’ ... New York appellate courts regard prior awards as not binding but instructive. Jury verdicts and judicial opinions approving or disapproving them, when considered over a period of time, provide ‘some indication of the consensus of opinion of jurors and courts as to the proper relation between the character of the injury and the amount of compensation to be awarded.’”
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.