Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 679 F.2d 1037 - Wheatley v. Ford

Wheatley v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis

679 F.2d 1037 · 1982

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
3
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

57 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Smith v. Lightning Bolt Productions, Inc. (1988), Stratton v. Department for the Aging (1997)

57 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

6401982199020002010decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Carey v. Piphus · New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer · City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, Manhattan-Ward, Incorporated v. Grinnell Corporation, 1225 Vine Street Building, Inc. v. Grinnell Corporation · Grunenthal v. Long Island Rail Road · Wainwright Securities Inc. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp.

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

  1. “). 36 In determining whether an award is so excessive as to shock the judicial conscience, we look, as a court sitting in diversity, to other jury awards condoned by the courts of the state whose substantive law governs the rights of the parties, in this case New York State. While there are difficulties inherent in comparing one personal injury award to another because differentiating facts in each case”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[w]hen reviewing a claim of excessive damages, an appellate court must accord substantial deference to the jury's determination of factual issues.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he civil rights statues should not be construed to provide windfall recoveries for successful attorneys.”
    2 later decisions 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.