Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 832 F.2d 194 - Rowlett v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Rowlett v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

832 F.2d 194 · 1987

Citation profile

142
cited by 142 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

73 federal appellate · 27 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 142 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2020 · most notably Carole Kolstad v. American Dental Association (1999), Mesnick v. General Electric Co. (1991)

73 federal appellate · 27 district · 8 state decisions

86019871990200020102020decided

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. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Wilson v. Garcia · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson

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

  1. “'There is nothing in the trial of the case that convinces the court that the jury acted in passion or prejudice or that it did not administer substantial justice.' ") (quoting the opinion of the district court). We find that the district court was well within its discretion in refusing to order a new trial on this ground. C. Punitive Damages 204 Defendants finally protest that the evidence was insufficient to justify the jury's imposition of punitive damages against them. 18 The Supreme Court has made clear that: "a jury may be permitted to assess punitive damages in an action under Sec. 1983 when the defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the state of mind necessary to trigger liability for the wrong is at least as culpable as that required to make punitive damages applicable.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “discretion to determine whether punitive damages are necessary”
    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.