Stoner v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 4 district · 47 state decisions

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

1. “". . . The nature of proof in a conspiracy action is well stated in Hutson v. Imperial Royalties Co., 135 Kan. 718 , 13 P.2d 298 : `The combination or conspiracy may be proved by evincing a concurrent knowledge and approbation in the persons conspiring, of each other's acts; and it is usually done by proof of the separate acts of several persons concentrating in the same purpose or particular object. . . For the purpose of showing such connection, therefore, circumstantial evidence suffices. The plaintiff may either prove the conspiracy which renders the acts of the conspirators admissible in evidence, or he may prove the acts of the different persons, and thus prove the conspiracy. (5 R.C.L. 1103, 1104.)'"”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. INTERN. U., UNITED AUTO., ETC. v. Cardwell Mfg. Co. · Pearl v. Oklahoma City

2. ““It is difficult to lay down, any rule by which to test the question of excess in a verdict for punitive or exemplary damages. At common láw the amount was left almost entirely to the jury, and the courts generally refused to grant a new trial on the ground that the award was excessive, and would do so only in a glaring case of outrageous damages, and which all mankind at first blush must think so. It is now generally held, however, that the jury is not at liberty, unrestrained, to award by way of punitive damages any amount, regardless of how large ,it may be. While their verdict will not be set aside unless it is so large as to satisfy the court that it was not the result of an honest exercise of judgment, an award of exemplary damages is subject to revision by the court to the same extent as awards of compensatory damages, and will be set aside if it iq grossly excessive or appears to be the result of passion or prejudice or improper sympathy. The court will not interfere except in extreme cases, however, and where it appears that an injustice has been done, and, perhaps, will proceed with more caution in such a case than where only compensatory damages are involved.” (p. 395.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Motor Equipment Co. v. McLaughlin

3. “Not having sustained the burden of proof to establish actual damages . the appellees cannot recover punitive damages. Before exemplary or punitive damages may be awarded, the party upon whom the burden of proof is cast must establish actual damages and the right t.o recover therefor. (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mid-America Food Service, Inc. v. Ara Services, Inc.