Medvecz v. Choi’s Empirical Analysis
569 F.2d 1221 · 1977
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably 318 Pa. Super. 90 - Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A. (1984), McKenna v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1980)
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc. · Chambers v. Montgomery · 217 Pa. Super. 35 - Focht v. Rabada · Quinones v. United States
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Punitive damages are damages, other than compensatory or nominal damages, awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct and to deter him and others like him from similar conduct in the future. (2) Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant’s evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others. In assessing punitive damages the trier of fact can properly consider the character of the defendant’s act, the nature and the extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Punitive damages are awarded only for outrageous conduct, that is, for acts done with a bad motive or with a reckless indifference to the interests of others.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The question ..., in tort actions generally, is whether there has been sufficiently aggravated conduct contrary to the plaintiffs’ interests, involving bad motive or reckless indifference, to justify the special sanction of punitive damages. That sanction serves the dual function of penalizing past conduct constituting an aggravated violation of anothers interests, and of deterring such behavior in the future.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.