Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 178 SW2D 549 - Lusk v. Onstott

Lusk v. Onstott’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
3
states following
March 1988
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1988

11 state decisions

4019441950196019701980decided

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 Commonwealth v. Davis · 47 Tex. Civ. App. 277 - Foley v. Northrup · City of Austin v. Howard · Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wiggins · 42 Tex. Civ. App. 431 - Sparks v. Ponder

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

  1. ““ * * * A principal is usually liable for injuries inflicted upon third persons or their property by the malicious or wanton conduct of his agent when committed within the scope of the agency, but where one seeks to ascribe to the principal acts of' malice or wantonness of his agent in order to recover exemplary damages, the evidence must show that the principal had knowledge of, or participated in, the malice or that he ratified and adopted the acts of the agent which constituted the alleged malice. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Davis, 140 Texas 398 , 168 S.W. 2d 216 ; Taylor v. Esparza, Texas Civ. App., 8 S.W. 2d 288 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Malice, in respect to exemplary damages, does not consist of personal hatred, ill will, or animosity. It consists of a state of mind that is reckless in its nature and implies a determination to do a thing regardless of legal rights or for the purpose of inflicting an injury. True, it may be motivated by personal ill will, hatred, or animosity, but unless the wrongful act proceeds from the malice and is done deliberately and in disregard of legal rights or in an effort to gratify passion engendered by hatred or ill will, the latter becomes immaterial in so far as exemplary damages are concerned.”
    1 later decision 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.