Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 390 F.3d 525 - Kapelanski v. Johnson

Kapelanski v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

390 F.3d 525 · 2004

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
January 2025
most recently cited

19 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Molski v. Mj Cable Inc (2007), Farfaras v. Citizens Bank (2006)

19 federal appellate ·

250200420102020decided

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 BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore · State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Campbell · Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. · 69 Ill. 2d 320 - Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School · 79 Ill. 2d 282 - Soules v. General Motors Corp.

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

  1. “We review challenges to the propriety of a compensatory damages award for abuse of discretion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “whether a punitive damage award is grossly excessive such that it offends due process: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of defendant's conduct; (2) the disparity between the harm or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and his punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between this remedy and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “if a reasonable basis exists in the record to support the verdict, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and leaving issues of credibility and weight of evidence to the jury.”
    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.