Klam v. Koppel’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably Cheney v. Palos Verdes Investment Corp. (1983), Graves v. Cupic (1954)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 26 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 Geneva Gin & Storage Co. v. Rawls · Wicklund v. Allraum · Unfried v. Libert · Schlieff v. Bistline · Gunnell v. Largilliere Co.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * any distinct act of dominion wrongfully exerted over another's personal property in denial or inconsistent with his rights therein, such as a tortious taking of another's chattels, or any wrongful exercise or assumption of authority, personally or by procurement, over another's goods, depriving him of the possession, permanently or for an indefinite time.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““As we understand the rule of exemplary or punitive damages, they cannot be recovered unless the evidence shows clearly that the action of the wrongdoer is wanton, malicious, or gross and outrageous, or where the facts are such as to imply malice and oppression . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Unfried v. Libert, 20 Idaho 708, 728 , 119 P. 885, 891 (1911).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is contended ‘the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to disclose malice, oppression, wantonness, etc., warranting punitive damages.’ In Dwyer v. Libert, 30 Idaho 576, 586 , 167 P. 651, 653 , Ann.Cas. 1918B, 973, we quoted with approval the following from Stark v. Epler, 59 Or. 262 , 117 P. 276 : “ ‘The rules of pleading do not require that the allegations relating to exemplary damages should 'be set out separately from the other averments of the complaint. Special damages must be grounded upon separate allegations, but exemplary damages are so intimately connected with general ■damages that, if the general allegations are sufficient to show the wrong complained of was inflicted with malice or oppression, or ■other like circumstances, the complaint will 'be sufficient to authorize the infliction of punitive or exemplary damages.’ We then held: “ ‘It is not necessary to the recovery of exemplary damages that they should be specially claimed in the complaint, but such damages may be recovered under a claim for damages generally.’ ””
2 later decisions 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.