Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 157 F.2d 410 - Crary v. Porter

Crary v. Porter’s Empirical Analysis

157 F.2d 410 · 1946

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
3
states following
December 1992
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 1992 · most notably Allred v. Graves (1964), Woods v. Robb (1948)

13 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

110194619501960197019801990decided

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 Yakus v. United States · Helvering v. Mitchell · Helvering v. Mitchell · United States v. Hark · Lees v. United States

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

  1. “[m]ere increased or multiple damages, whether they be for exemplary or other public-interest purposes, whose allowance is dependent upon the recovery of actual damages, have never been regarded as constituting a criminal penalty. See 15 AmJur., Damages, § 267, p. 703. A penalty in a sense they may well be, in their practical significance perhaps and to the defendant’s mind no doubt, but in legal concept their allowance is simply an incident or part of the remedial sanction of damages. Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. 531, 547 , 80 U.S. 531, 547 , 20 L.Ed. 491 , put it thus: ‘There are many cases in which a party injured is allowed to recover in a civil action double or treble damages. * * * It will hardly be claimed that these are penal actions requiring the application of different rules * * * from those that prevail in other actions for indemnity.’ To whatever extent, therefore, that it may be argued that double or treble damages in a civil action amount to a penalty, they are, unless the statute otherwise indicates, a mere remedial sanction and do not in any way make the action subject to the rules or privileges of a criminal prosecution.”
    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.