Exxon Valdez v. L W C’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district · 4 state decisions

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

1. “In Planned Parenthood, we used this guidance from State Farm to construct a “rough framework” for determining the appropriate ratio of punitive damages to harm. See [Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists ], 422 F.3d [949] at 962 [ (9th Cir.2005) ]. We held that in cases where there are “significant economic damages” but behavior is not “particularly egregious,” a ratio of up to 4 to 1 “serves as a good proxy for the limits of constitutionality.” Id. (citing State Farm, 538 U.S. at 425 , 123 S.Ct. 1513 ). In cases with significant economic damages and “more egregious behavior,” however, a single-digit ratio higher than 4 to 1 “might be constitutional.” Id. (citing Zhang [v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc.], 339 F.3d [1020] at 1043-44 [(9th Cir.2003)]; Bains [LLC v. Arco Products Co.], 405 F.3d [764] at 776-77 [ (9th Cir.2005) ]). Finally, in cases where there are “insignificant” economic damages and the behavior is “particularly egregious,” we said that “the single-digit ratio may not be a good proxy for constitutionality.” Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 594 F. Supp. 2d 1168 - Merrick v. Paul Revere Life Insurance

2. “whether: the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 594 F. Supp. 2d 1168 - Merrick v. Paul Revere Life Insurance

3. “A defendant cannot buy full immunity from punitive damages by paying the likely amount of compensatory damages before judgment.”); Ennen, 268 P.3d at 291 (without bad faith liability”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Gonzalez