Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 875 F.2d 501 - Williams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

Williams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

875 F.2d 501 · 1989

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
2
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Foradori v. Harris (2008), Marcel v. Placid Oil Co. (1994)

22 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

2501989199020002010decided

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 The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. United States · Entrevia v. Hood · Henry v. City of Detroit Manpower Department · Caldarera v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.

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.

  1. “expressed the extent of distortion that warrants [appellate] intervention by requiring such awards to be so large as to shock [the] judicial conscience, so gross or inordinately large as to be contrary to right reason, so exaggerated as. to indicate bias, passion, prejudice, corruption, or other improper motive, or as clearly exceeding that amount that any reasonable man could feel the claimant is entitled to.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The decision to grant or deny a motion for new trial is, however, within the sound discretion of the trial court, and reversible only for abuse of that discretion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “it [was] undoubtedly possible that the jury would have confused its purpose for that precluded by Rule 408”
    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.