Campen v. Stone’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Transportation Insurance Co. v. Moriel (1994), Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1984)
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 24 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 25 Cal. 3d 932 - Agarwal v. Johnson · 61 Ill. 2d 31 - Mattyasovszky v. West Towns Bus Co. · Coy v. Superior Court · Laidlaw v. . Sage · 393 So. 2d 545 - Mercury Motors Exp., Inc. v. Smith
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.
““1. The plaintiff may claim in his [or her] complaint a right to punitive damages and then seek pretrial discovery of a defendant’s wealth. “2. Defendant may move for a protective order requiring the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing to the trial court that a viable issue exists for punitive damages. Upon such a showing, the pretrial discovery would be allowed.” Cam-pen, 635 P.2d at 1132 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cates v. Eddy · Palmisano v. Toth“Both of these sections provide that: “Punitive damages can properly be awarded against a master or other principal because of an act by an agent if, but only if, “(a) the principal or a managerial agent authorized the doing and the manner of the act, or “(b) the agent was unfit and the principal or a managerial agent was reckless in employing or retaining him, or “(e) the agent was employed in a managerial capacity and was acting in the scope of employment, or “(d) the principal or a managerial agent of the principal ratified or approved the act.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““However, we do not read the New Jersey decision as requiring a special jury verdict on punitive damages before permitting discovery. Rather, what the New Jersey court concluded was that a prima facie showing had to be made of the right to recover punitive damages before a general disclosure of a defendant’s wealth can be compelled....” [Cobb v. Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, 99 Cal.App.3d 543 ] 160 Cal. Rptr. [561] at 564-65 [(1979)]. We do not understand the reluctance of the California and Tennessee courts to adopt the bifurcation of the trial. If the wealth of a defendant is allowed to be discovered prior to trial upon a prima facie showing of willful and wanton misconduct, no unnecessary delay will occur. ... So long as discovery is allowed before trial, there should be no delay once a jury decides punitive damages should be awarded. The evidence of a defendant’s wealth can be submitted right then, and the jury can deliberate further on the proper amount to be awarded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Miller v. O'NEILL
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.