Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 Miss. 393 - Teche Lines, Inc. v. Pope

Teche Lines, Inc. v. Pope’s Empirical Analysis

1936

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
2
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Fowler Butane Gas Co. v. Varner (1962), 483 So. 2d 254 - Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Crenshaw (1985)

4 federal appellate · 45 state decisions

110193619401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Beard v. Williams · Mississippi Cent. R. v. Roberts · Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. Williams · Godfrey v. Meridian Light & Railway Co. · Wilson v. State

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

  1. “The verdict was for $15,000. This is a larger amount than any one of us would have voted for had we been on the jury. But, as we have often heretofore said, that is not the test. The state of the record is such that had there been no allowance of punitory damages and the verdict had been for half the stated amount as compensatory damages, we would not be authorized to interfere. Assuming, therefore, that half, or even more than half, the amount of the verdict represents a punitory award, we are still not authorized to interfere. We call attention to Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. v. Williams, 87 Miss. 344, 355 , 39 So. 489, 491 , wherein it was said: `It is the long settled and uniformly adhered to rule in our jurisprudence that the amount of such punitory or exemplary damages is solely within the discretion of the jury, and, no matter what the sum of their finding might be, interference therewith, unless for exceptional causes, is discouraged ... the reason being that, as the jury are the sole judges of the amount which ought properly to be assessed in order to inflict adequate punishment, the courts should scrupulously avoid any undue interference with their prerogative'.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is the firmly established law in this state that punitive damages are recoverable not only for willful and intentional wrong, but for such gross and reckless negligence as is, in the eyes of the law, the equivalent of willful wrong. Godfrey v. Meridian Ry. & Light Co., 101 Miss. 565, 568 , 58 So. 534 . There is no precise definition of gross negligence, but one of the approximate definitions may be thus expressed: Gross negligence is that course of conduct which, under the particular circumstances, discloses a reckless indifference to consequences without the exertion of any substantial effort to avoid them. The facts of this case, as the statement thereof reveals, bring it well within that definition and principle. Compare Wilson v. State, 173 Miss. 372 , 161 So. 744 , wherein we affirmed a manslaughter conviction, as for culpable negligence, upon a state of facts in which the negligence was no more culpable than in the case now before us.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The Court charges the jury for plaintiff that if from a preponderance of the evidence you believe that the driver of the bus was guilty of gross negligence, that is, of such negligence as evidenced a reckless disregard for the safety of passengers, then in addition to actual damages for injuries which plaintiff may have sustained as the proximate result thereof, you may, in your discretion, award exemplary or punitive damages.”
    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.