Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
172 federal appellate · 22 district · 127 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 454 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2022 · most notably Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. (1989), Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Haslip (1991)
172 federal appellate · 22 district · 127 state decisions — followed in 29 states
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Stanley v. Illinois · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Broadrick v. Oklahoma
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 454 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]unitive damages are not measured against actual injury, so there is no objective standard that limits their amount,”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"In determining whether to exercise jurisdiction over questions not properly raised below, the Court has focused on the policies that animate the `not pressed or passed upon below' rule. These policies are first, comity to the States, and second, a constellation of practical consideration, chief among which is our own need for a properly developed record on appeal. See Webb v. Webb, supra, 451 U.S. [493], at 500-501, 101 S.Ct. [1889], at 1893-1894 [ 68 L.Ed.2d 392 (1981) ]. Because the chief issue appellant would have us resolvewhether the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause serves to limit punitive damages in state civil casesis a question of some moment and difficulty, these policies apply with special force. See Illinois v. Gates, supra, 462 U.S. [213], at 224, 103 S.Ct. [2317], at 2325 [ 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) ] (`Where difficult issues of great public importance are involved, there are strong reasons to adhere scrupulously to the customary limitations on our discretion'); Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. [502], at 512-513, 86 S.Ct. [958], at 965 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 56 (1966) ] (`The far-reaching and important questions tendered by this claim are not presented by the record with sufficient clarity to require or justify their decision'). Our review of appellant's claim now would short-circuit a number of less intrusive, and possibly more appropriate, resolutions: the Mississippi State Legislature might choose to enact legislation addressing punitive damages awards for bad-fai”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[A]rbitrary and irrational discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause under even our most deferential standard of review.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.