Goad v. MacOn County, Tenn.’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2019
1 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Memphis Community School District v. Stachura · Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union · Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc. · Robertson v. Wegmann · Wren v. Spurlock
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`If there is an inconsis tency the State law must be rejected and this court must fashion an appropriate remedy to carry out the congressional pur poses behind the civil rights legislation.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The purpose of punitive damages is to punish and deter. Furthermore, the focus is upon particular defendants rather than upon compensating a victim as is the case with compensatory damages. The focus is undistorted when set-offs are applied to compensatory damage awards because the victim still receives complete compensation. However, the focus of punitive damage awards can be completely bypassed if reduced by the amount of settlement monies received from other defendants. The target of the punitive damage award, the defendant the jury intended to punish, would escape with absolutely no punishment at all if the settlement was as large as the compensatory damage award and punitive damage award combined. If not as large, there would still be a lesser punishment than the jury deemed appropriate. The court concludes such a result is inconsistent with the important purpose of punishing specific violators of civil rights. Accordingly, such a result will not be allowed. Additionally, refusal to allow a set-off against punitive damages will ensure that adequate specific deterrence exists for those particular defendants which, according to the jury, need particular attention and punishment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the threat of compensating for the injuries will make the actor less inclined to perform the conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Burke v. Regalado
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.