Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 F.2d 22 - Schlein v. Smith

Schlein v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

160 F.2d 22 · 1947

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
4
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 7 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Shimman v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18 (1984), Straub v. Vaisman & Co. (1976)

29 federal appellate · 7 district · 11 state decisions

15019471950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Ballard v. Spruill · Smith v. Schlein

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

  1. ““ . . . We regard the fraud revealed by the record as gross in nature, practiced wilfully and oppressively upon untutored trusting victims who were long ignorant of their rights and but vaguely conscious of their wrongs. In such circumstances, it was proper to award counsel fees, under the rule concerning punitive damages stated in 8 R.C.L. 585, which we quoted with approval in Ballard v. Spruill, 64 App. D.C. 60 , 74 F. 2d 464 , 466: “ ‘ To warrant the allowance of such damages the act complained of must not only he unlawful hut must also partake somewhat of a criminal or wanton nature. And so it is an almost universally recognized rule that such damages may be recovered in cases, and only in such cases where the wrongful action complained of is characterized by some such circumstances of aggravation as willfulness, wantonness, malice, oppression, brutality, insult, recklessness, gross negligence, or gross fraud on the part of the defendant.’ ” 160 F. 2d at 25 (emphasis added).”
    2 later decisions 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.