Berroyer v. Hertz’s Empirical Analysis
672 F.2d 334 · 1982
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Kmc Co Inc v. Irving Trust Company (1985), Dreyer v. ARCO Chemical Co. (1986)
13 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 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 Helfat v. Securities & Exchange Commission · 8 Cal. 3d 229 - Cobbs v. Grant · Michael Meyers, Individually and as Representative of a Class v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Association and Marion A. Steinbronn · Gray v. Grunnagle · 58 Wis. 2d 569 - Trogun v. Fruchtman
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... after she fell, then one of the boys, the clerks, went and picked her up, and approached her, and helped to pick her up and said 'that has been on the floor for a couple of hours.' " Id. (emphasis added). Based on this evidence alone, the court determined that the store had constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Similarly, the jury in this case could have reasonably inferred that the cottage cheese was on the floor for an unreasonably long period of time. 7 C. Punitive Damages 35 Pueblo Supermarket also claims that the district court erred in upholding the jury's award of punitive damages premised on the hearsay statement of Susan Jacobs. Thus, we must make a "careful analysis of the entire trial record”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our decisions identify four principal criteria for making and evaluating that discretionary judgment: (1) the prejudice or surprise in fact to the nonmoving party, (2) the ability of that party to cure the prejudice, (3) the extent to which the waiver of the rule would disrupt the orderly and efficient trial of the case, and (4) bad faith or willfulness on the part of the movant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bowytz v. Skolnick“since the purpose of punitive damages is not compensation of the plaintiff but punishment of the defendant and deterrence, these damages can be awarded only for conduct for which this remedy is appropriate--which is to say, conduct involving some element of outrage similar to that usually found in crime.”
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.