Burroughs v. FFP Operating Partners, L.P.’s Empirical Analysis
28 F.3d 543 · 1994
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably 913 F. Supp. 976 - Pegues v. Emerson Electric Co. (1996), 254 F. Supp. 2d 23 - Maydak v. U.S. Department of Justice (2003)
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps · Moss v. Old Colony Trust Co. · Omnitech International, Inc. v. Clorox Co. · 626 So. 2d 603 - McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix Co., Inc.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by “malice,” or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Absent spite, ill will, malicious purpose, or wanton disregard for the veracity of the statements and where the communications are limited to those persons who have a legitimate and direct interest in the subject matter, the communications are privileged, and a presumption of good faith attaches.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; (2) an unprivileged communication to a third person; (3) fault amounting to at least negligence on the part of the publisher; and (4) actionability irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm.”
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.