Pulla v. Amoco Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis
72 F.3d 648 · 1995
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 11 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 125 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Kim v. Nash Finch Company (1997), 63 Cal. App. 4th 1128 - Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie (1998)
66 federal appellate · 11 district · 10 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 294 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Cities of Charlottesville v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. · Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Haslip · Dennis v. Dennis · TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp. · Nebraska v. Wyoming
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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“reverse for a clear abuse of discretion only where there is an 'absolute absence of evidence' to support the jury's verdict.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘Punitive damages should bear a reasonable relationship to the harm that is likely to occur from the defendant’s conduct as well as to the harm that actually has occurred. If the defendant’s actions cause or would likely cause in a similar situation only slight harm, the damages should be relatively small. If the harm is grievous, the damages should be greater....’ It is appropriate to consider the magnitude of the potential harm that the defendant’s conduct would have caused to its intended victim if the wrongful plan had succeeded, as well as the possible harm to other victims that might have resulted if similar future behavior were not deterred_ While petitioner stresses the shocking disparity between the punitive award and the compensatory award, that shock dissipates when one considers the potential loss to respondents.... In sum, we do not consider the dramatic disparity between the actual damages and the punitive award controlling in a case of this character.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a litigant who fails to move for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the evidence cannot later argue--either in a post-trial Rule 50 motion or on appeal--that the verdict was supported by insufficient evidence.”
3 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.