Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 461 NW2D 833 - Rees v. O'MALLEY

Rees v. O'MALLEY’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Lara v. Thomas (1994), Wilson v. IBP, Inc. (1996)

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions

130199020002010decided

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 Vinson v. Linn-Mar Community School District · Anderson v. Low Rent Housing Commission · Ferris v. Riley · Brown v. First National Bank of Mason City · Melton v. Bow

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

  1. “(1) is flagrantly excessive or inadequate; or (2) is so out of reason as to shock the conscience or sense of justice; or (3) raises a presumption it is a result of passion, prejudice or other ulterior motive; or (4) is lacking in evidentiary support.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[A] qualified or conditionally privileged communication is one made in good faith on any subject matter in which the person communicating has an interest, or in reference to which that person has a right or duty, if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty in a manner and under circumstances fairly warranted by the occasion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “We have previously stated that when the “verdict is so flagrantly excessive that it goes beyond the limits of fair compensation ... and fails to do substantial justice between the parties, it is our duty to correct the error by granting a new trial or requiring a remittitur on pain of the grant of a new trial.” Sallis v. Lamansky, 420 N.W.2d 795, 800-01 (Iowa 1988); see also Ferris v. Riley, 251 Iowa 400, 414 , 101 N.W.2d 176, 184 (1960). In determining whether the damage award is excessive, we must abide by the principle that each case depends upon its own facts, and precedents are of little value. Ferris, 251 Iowa at 412 , 101 N.W.2d at 183 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.