McDaniel v. Dulworth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"(b) In a suit filed under this section, each consumer who prevails may obtain: "(1) three times the amount of actual damages plus court costs and attorneys' fees reasonable in relation to the amount of work expended". (Emphasis supplied)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bavarian Autohaus, Inc. v. Holland · Spradling v. Williams

2. ““ ‘May’ as used in the introductory phrase of section 17.50(b) has as its subject ‘each consumer;’ therefore, any discretion lies with the consumer. Merely because the statute uses the permissive ‘may’ with respect to the consumer is not tantamount to saying that the trial court ‘may’ determine whether treble damages are awarded. In our view, the clear language permits the aggrieved consumer four different, yet complementary, remedies to rectify the wrong that he alone may elect to pursue. One of these is treble damages. We hold, therefore, that section 17.50(b)(1) is mandatory in requiring treble damages once liability under section 17.50(a) has been established. “Our interpretation is in accord with the legislative intent to provide effective relief for aggrieved consumers who would not otherwise sue but for the provision pertaining to treble damages and to reasonable attorney’s fees based upon the amount of work expended rather than the amount of actual damages. To hold otherwise would render ineffective the legislative intent to encourage aggrieved consumers to seek redress and to deter unscrupulous sellers who engage in deceptive trade practices. Indeed, Tex.Bus. & Comm.Code Ann. § 17.44 (Vernon Supp.1976) mandates that the Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act shall be liberally construed so as to protect consumers and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure this protection.” [Emphasis added.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Woods v. Littleton

3. “. However, since each of the above five acts are in fact instances of Deceptive Trade Practices as listed in the twenty acts of the statute, and since § 17.44 —Construction and Application (Supp.1976-77) requires a liberal construction of the Act, we hold that the error was harmless, Tex.R.Civ.P. 434. As previously noted herein, the trial court awarded double damages to the plaintiff. Both parties object to this, contending that the Act requires the award of treble damages when a violation is established. The applicable section of the Act follows:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Spradling v. Williams