Will v. Hughes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 74 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a]n award of punitive damages must be reviewed in the light of the actual damages sustained, the actual damage award, the circumstances of the case (the nature, extent, and enormity of the wrong), the intent of the party committing it, the relative positions of the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant’s financial worth and the plaintiffs probable litigation expenses.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ruiz v. Quiktrip Corp. · 2 Kan. App. 2d 683 - Kiser v. Gilmore

2. ““. . . Such damages are allowable not because of any special merit in the plaintiff’s case, but are imposed by way of punishing the defendant for malicious, vindictive or a willful and wanton invasion of the plaintiff’s rights, the purpose being to restrain him and deter others from the commission of like wrongs. Such damages are only given where malice, fraud or a willful and wanton disregard of the rights of others enter into the case. . . .” (p. 150.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Allman v. Bird · Atkinson v. Herington Cattle Co., Inc.

3. ““But was Margaret responsible for such interference? There was no evidence she authorized the acts of lames before they were committed. She did, however, retain the benefits of the wrongful act. According to plaintiff’s evidence she never accounted to him for any of the wheat lames removed. “In 2 C. J. S., Agency, § 84a, the rule is stated thus: “ ‘Ratification in agency is an adoption or confirmation by one person of an act performed on his behalf by another without authority. The substance of the doctrine is confirmation after conduct, amounting to a substitute for prior authority.’ “To the same effect is the statement in 2 Am. Jur., Agency, § 232, and in other authorities. “In Flitch v. Boyle, 149 Kan. 834 , 89 P. 2d 909 , it was held: “ ‘When a principal, expressly or impliedfly], elects to ratify an unauthorized act, he must, so far as it is entire, ratify the whole of it and he will not be permitted to accept its benefits and reject its burdens.’ (Syl. ¶ 1.) “See, also, Watson v. Woodruff, 154 Kan. 61 , 114 P. 2d 864 . The ratification by the principal of an unauthorized act of his agent is equivalent to an original grant of authority. (Aultman v. Knoll, 71 Kan. 109 , 79 Pac. 1074 .) Upon acquiring knowledge of the agent’s unauthorized act the principal should promptly repudiate the act. Otherwise, it will be presumed he has ratified and affirmed the act. (Isaacs v. Motor Co., 108 Kan. 17 , 193 Pac. 1081 .) In all cases he must repudiate the unauthorized act at least wi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rogers v. Beiderwell