Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 350 Md. 4 - Bowden v. Caldor, Inc.

Bowden v. Caldor, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

84
cited by 84 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
July 2021
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 28 district · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 84 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2021 · most notably Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2008), Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2008)

2 federal appellate · 28 district · 50 state decisions

4501998200020102020decided

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 North Carolina v. Pearce · BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore · Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. · Tull v. United States · Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[S]imply because the defendant has engaged in some “heinous” or “egregiously bad conduct” does not necessarily justify a large award of punitive damages. Under Maryland law, engagement in such conduct is a prerequisite for any award of punitive damages. Accordingly, in determining whether the amount of the award is disproportionate to the gravity of the defendant’s conduct, it is the degree of heinousness which is important.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Another appropriate consideration in judicially reviewing an award of punitive damages is to compare the award with other final punitive damages awards in the jurisdiction, and particularly with awards in somewhat comparable cases.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “sense of conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, evil or wrongful motive, intent to injure, ill will, or fraud.”
    3 later decisions 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.