Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 625 F.2d 1242 - Broussard v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

Broussard v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.’s Empirical Analysis

625 F.2d 1242 · 1980

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba · Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Shuford

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

  1. “Conceivably the pollution of Potter’s Creek could have continued despite efforts to correct it which, though not meeting the standard of reasonableness, would have demonstrated that Atlas acted with at least some concern for the consequences to downstream property owners. If efforts were made, this record is silent about them. For years Atlas was in violation of its state permit and doing harm to the public waters and the property of others. Atlas shows no explanation or justification and apparently did nothing of any significance to meet the problem. The jury was entitled to conclude that Atlas made the business decision to continue the discharge of its waste and did so with conscious indifference to the rights of others. Therefore we have a proper basis for an award to this plaintiff of exemplary damages, (emphasis supplied)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The holding in Atlas Chemical establishes that evidence of slight care will not always be enough to bar exemplary damages. Instead, in determining whether a defendant is liable for gross negligence, the question is whether, in light of all the surrounding circumstances, the defendant failed to exercise care, or exercised so slight a degree of care, that one can say the defendant was consciously indifferent to the interest of others. Id. at 1245 .”
    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.