Ross v. Gore’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably 450 So. 2d 217 - Holly v. Auld (1984), Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp. (2004)
5 federal appellate · 65 state decisions
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 A. R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey, as Admrx. · Dr. P. Phillips & Sons, Inc. v. Kilgore · State Ex Rel. Silverman v. Coleman · Comer v. Age Herald Publishing Co. · Hanson v. Krehbiel
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before any civil action is brought for publication, in a newspaper or periodical, of a libel, the plaintiff shall, at least five days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on defendant, specifying the article, and the statements therein, which he alleges to be false and defamatory.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Since the preservation of our American democracy depends upon the public's receiving information speedily * * * it is vital that no unreasonable restraints be placed upon the working news reporter or the editorial writer".”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“"§ 90. Punitive Damages. " The purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate but only to serve as a deterrent to others inclined to commit a similar offense. They are characterized as an allowance for malice, moral turpitude, wantonness, or outrageousness in the commission of the tort. Accordingly, in a suit for libel, although no special damage may have been proved, the plaintiff may recover what is known as exemplary or punitive damages on a showing that the publication was made from malice or ill will toward the plaintiff. But from implied malice alone an award of exemplary or punitive damages is not authorized. If there is nothing in the character of the publication itself to show express malice that is ill will, hostility, or evil intention to defame or injure the occasion for exemplary or punitive damages does not arise. In other words, to justify such an award some proof to establish express malice, or malice in fact, is necessary. " (Emphasis supplied).”
6 later decisions 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.