Peyton v. F’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 20 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Dotson v. Pfizer, Inc. (2009), Fogg v. Gonzales (2007)
7 federal appellate · 20 district · 2 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 Carey v. Piphus · Grunenthal v. Long Island Rail Road · Dagnello v. Long Island Rail Road · Cassino v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. · Anyanwutaku v. Moore
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he cases appellant offers for purposes of comparison in which lesser damages were awarded or approved do not convince us [that the award should be reduced]. In rejecting that line of argument, we find useful the reasoning of a state court considering a similar question in a different context .... Because of the unique circumstances of each case as well as the adjustments which would necessarily have to be made for inflation, it is awkward to discuss the size of an award through comparison with past decisions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the verdict is beyond all reason, so as to shock the conscience, or (2) the verdict is so in ordinarily large as to obviously exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The eases that appellant offers for purposes of comparison in which lesser damages were awarded or approved do not convince us to the contrary. In rejecting that line of argument, we find useful the reasoning of a state court.... ‘[T]here is no way of obtaining uniformity in the amount juries and trial judges may award for damages____Because of the unique circumstances of each case as well as the adjustments which would necessarily have to be made for inflation, it is awkward to discuss the size of an award through comparison with past decisions.’ Just so here.”
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.