Jennifer Passantino Charles Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Order and Products Inc’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

80 federal appellate · 40 district · 11 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 234 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he trial court may grant a new trial only if the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, is based upon false or perjurious evidence, or to prevent a miscarriage of justice.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Crowley v. Epicept Corp. · Nat'l Prods., Inc. v. Arkon Res., Inc.

2. “`discriminate[s] in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law.'... [A]lthough egregious conduct could be evidence of intent to break the law, such conduct [is] not required to establish punitive damages liability. Thus, in general, intentional discrimination is enough to establish punitive damages liability.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Horning Bros., LLC · Hemmings v. Tidyman's Inc.

3. “set forth three areas in which the fact-finder could find intentional discrimination but the defendant would nonetheless not be liable for punitive damages. First, if the theory of discrimination was novel or poorly recognized, the employer could reasonably believe that its action was legal even though discriminatory. Second, the employer could believe it had a valid BFOQ defense to its discriminatory conduct. Third, in some (presumably rare) situations, the employer could actually be unaware of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination. Common to all of these exceptions is that they occur when the employer is aware of the specific discriminatory conduct at issue, but nonetheless reasonably believes that conduct is lawful. Under such circumstances, an employer may not be liable for punitive damages.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 530 F. Supp. 2d 1096 - U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catholic Healthcare West · 966 F. Supp. 2d 949 - U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.