Kink v. Combs’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
112 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 128 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably 97 Wis. 2d 260 - Wangen v. Ford Motor Co. (1980), 105 Wis. 2d 231 - State v. Clausen (1982)
112 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 Bethke v. Duwe · Brophy v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Transport Co. · Olson v. Williams · Luther v. Shaw · Rogers v. Rosenfeld
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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[M]alice or vindictiveness are not the sine qua non of punitive damages.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““This court takes the position that punitive damages do serve as a deterrent. As we said recently in Malco v. Midwest Aluminum Sales (1961), 14 Wis. (2d) 57, 66, 109 N.W. (2d) 516 : “ ‘Punitive damage is given on the basis of punishment ... to deter others from like conduct.’ “Referring to punitive damages, this court many years ago said: “ ‘It tends to elevate the jury as a responsible instrument of government, discourages private reprisals, restrains the strong, influential, and unscrupulous, vindicates the right of the weak, and encourages recourse to and confidence in the courts of law by those wronged or oppressed by acts or practices not cognizable in or not sufficiently punished by the criminal law. The latter law must be uniform as to persons and acts, must fix a maximum and minimum punishment on this basis, and cannot always be adjusted to particular circumstances of atrocity which occasionally occur.’ Luther v. Shaw (1914), 157 Wis. 234, 238 , 147 N. W. 18 . “Certainly the award of these damages should deter similar conduct on the part of this defendant.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““. . . By failing to move for a mistrial at that time defendant waived his right to assert prejudice later. “In the instant case the defendant, if he ,felt aggrieved, should have moved for mistrial at the close of the plaintiffs’ case. . . . “Failure to make a timely motion can only be construed as an election to rely on the possibility of a favorable jury verdict. . . .” 2”
3 later decisions 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.