Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 390 P2D 486 - Morgan v. Bates

Morgan v. Bates’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
March 1983
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1983

2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

50196419701980decided

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 Pure Oil Co. v. Quarles · Keener Oil & Gas Co. v. Stewart · Tomlinson v. Bailey · Barell Food Stores, Inc. v. Bennett · Alexander v. Jones

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

  1. ““ ‘The authorities are uniform in holding that to constitute willful or wanton negligence it is not necessary to show ill will toward the person injured, but an entire absence of care for the life, person, or property of others which exhibits indifference to consequences makes a case of constructive or legal willfulness. A complete indifference to consequences distinguishes wrongs caused by wantonness and recklessness from torts arising from negligence. Many cases sustain this general proposition * * *. «* * “ ‘ “The law is regardful of human life and personal safety, and if one is grossly and wantonly reckless in exposing others to danger, it holds him to have intended the natural consequences of his act, and treats him as guilty of a willful and intentional wrong.” ’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In any action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, actual or presumed, the jury, in addition to the actual damages, may give damages for the sake of example, and by way of punishing the defendant.””
    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.