Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 38 Colo. 175 - Gray v. Linton

Gray v. Linton’s Empirical Analysis

1906

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
November 1990
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently November 1990

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions

501906191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Southern Pac Co v. United States · Allison v. Chandler · Colorado Consolidated Land & Water Co. v. Hartman · Crymble v. Mulvaney · Jasper v. Purnell

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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In all civil actions in which damages shall be assessed by a jury for a wrong done to the person or to personal or real property, and the injury complained of shall have been attended by circumstances of fraud, malice or insult, or a wanton and reckless disregard of the injured party's rights and feelings such jury, in addition to the actual damages sustained by such party, may award him reasonable exemplary damages.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Franklin Supply Company, Etc. v. Albert W. Tolman, Jr. And Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company, Etc.
  2. “To justify a recovery of exemplary damages, the act causing the injuries must be done with an evil intent and with the purpose of injuring the plaintiff....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Estate of Korf v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc.
  3. “a wanton and reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Franklin Supply Company, Etc. v. Albert W. Tolman, Jr. And Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company, Etc.

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.