Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 308 Ark. 74 - Stein v. Lukas

Stein v. Lukas’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
1
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 74 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably Wallace v. Broyles (1998), Dodson v. Allstate Insurance (2001)

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 74 state decisions

5401992200020102020decided

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 Ray Dodge, Inc. v. Moore · Berkeley Pump Co. v. Reed-Joseph Land Co. · National By-Products, Inc. v. Searcy House Moving Co. · Dalrymple v. Fields · Satterfield v. Rebsamen Ford, 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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the negligent party knew, or had reason to believe, that his act of negligence was about to inflict injury, and that he continued in his course with a conscious indifference to the consequences.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In order to recover punitive damages from Union Pacific Railroad Company, John and Margaret Morris have the burden of proving: The Union Pacific Railroad Company knew or ought to have known, in- the light of the surrounding circumstances, that'their conduct would naturally and probably result in injury or damage and they continued such conduct in a reckless disregard of the consequences from which malice may be inferred.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Arkansas’ fee statute for civil actions does not embrace tort actions such as deceit. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-308 (1987). In this case deceit lies at the heart of the claim leveled by the [prevailing party] against the [losing party].”
    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.