Kleiner v. Eubank’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

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.

1. “"SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 4. “Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the Plaintiff Lewis, Inc., is entitled to exemplary damages against the Defendant Delhi Pipeline Corporation ? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Answer Yes. “You are instructed that before you can assess exemplary damages, you must believe and find from a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Delhi Pipeline Corporation acted wilfully, maliciously and with utter disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff Lewis, Inc. “In this connection you are also instructed that punitive damages may be assessed as punishment for a wrongful act done, if the facts warrant the same. In awarding such damages, if any, you may consider the sense of wrong and insult to the Plaintiff Lewis, Inc., and the damage to his reputation, if any as a result of the wrongful acts, if any, of the Defendant Delhi Pipeline Corporation. The amount to be fixed, if any, is in the sound discretion of the jury. “If you have answered Special Issue No. 4, ‘Yes’, then answer Special Issue No. 5; otherwise, do not answer same.” "SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 5. “What amount of money, if any, if paid now in cash, would compensate Plaintiff Lewis, Inc., for its exemplary damages, if any. Answer in dollars and cents, if any. Answer $15,000.00””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Delhi Pipeline Corporation v. Lewis, Inc.

2. ““In Texas it is an established rule of law that where, as here found by the jury, the employee (builder) is prevented by the employer (owner) from completing the performance of his contract, he is entitled to recover for the part performed and the damages he has sustained by reason of the breach of contract by the employer. Carroll v. Welch, 26 Tex. 147 . It is also established law that where an owner wrongfully interferes with a contractor and prevents his completion of the contract, the proper measure of damages where the contractor sues on the contract is the contract price less what would have been the cost to the contractor of completing the work, but that this is not the sole measure of damages since the contractor may treat the contract as rescinded and recover under quantum meruit the full value of the work done. Tower Contracting Company v. Flores, Tex.Civ.App., 294 S.W.2d 266, 272, 273 ; mod. and aff. 157 Tex. 297 , 302 S.W.2d 396, 399 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McCRACKEN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. Urrutia