Pitts v. Exxon Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 2017
1 federal appellate · 11 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 Arkansas Val Land Cattle Co v. Mann · Burdict v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. · Waller v. Skelton · Young v. Cowden · Telegraph Co. v. Frith
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he Court . . . review[s] and corrects] the judgment rendered to the extent of the excess as to which ‘it may very well be said there is no evidence to sustain it,’ and that ‘while no court has any right to substitute its own estimate of the damages for that of a jury, yet it has the right to determine the amount beyond which there is no evidence, upon any reasonable view of the case, to support the verdict.’ ” Id. at 833-34 quoting Alabama Great Southern R. R. v. Roberts, 113 Tenn. 483 , 497, 498, 82 S.W. 314 , 316 (1904).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Finally, an examination of the judicial process necessarily involved in a finding that a jury verdict is tainted by passion, prejudice or caprice, based upon the size of the award alone, requires first, that the line marking the upper limit of the range of reasonableness be established, and second, that the line marking the upper limit of the range of mere exces-siveness be established, beyond which, theoretically, would lie the passion, prejudice and caprice range.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Guess v. Maury“In short, Roberts held that trial courts had the authority to use remittiturs to cure excessive jury verdicts (1) where the verdict was merely excessive or (2) where it was so excessive that it evinced passion, prejudice or caprice, and it also affirmed the trial judge’s option to simply order a new trial without suggesting a remittitur, if he found the verdict so excessive as to evince passion, prejudice or caprice.”
1 later decision 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.