Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 641 F.2d 117 - Scott v. Plante

Scott v. Plante’s Empirical Analysis

641 F.2d 117 · 1981

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
4
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Simmons v. City of Philadelphia (1991), Wade v. Haynes (1981)

17 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions

3301981199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Bell v. Wolfish · Wood v. Strickland · Maine v. Thiboutot

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

  1. “the allowance of such damages inherently involves an evaluation of the nature of the conduct in question, the wisdom of some form of pecuniary punishment, and the advisability of a deterrent. Therefore, the infliction of such damages, and the amount thereof when inflicted, are of necessity within the discretion of the trier of fact.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(w)hen the evidence is simply too sparse to determine the punitive damages issue one way or another, and plaintiff bears the burden of proving malice or wantonness, perhaps a jury award of punitive damages cannot stand.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[s]ince the defendants did not in the trial court object to the form of the interrogatories either before or after the verdict, and do not on appeal argue that they were prejudiced by the way the questions were formulated, we must read them in a manner which reconciles them with the jurors' probable intention in light of the Court's instructions.”
    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.