Potts v. Benjamin’s Empirical Analysis
882 F.2d 1320 · 1989
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Dillinger v. Caterpillar, Inc. (1992), United States v. Kirkie (2001)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Darden v. Wainwright · Gray v. United States · Fryzel v. Cash Currency Exchange, Inc. · Bentzler v. Braun
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“so excessive as to constitute plain injustice, or a monstrous or shocking result.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,005 Don Farley Robert Mendenhall v. William R. Henson, Jr. Paul M. Henson Bowes Lyon Resources Ltd. National Transport Services, Inc., Westark Specialties, Inc., Don Farley Robert Mendenhall v. William R. Henson, Jr., Paul M. Henson, Bowes Lyon Resources Ltd. National Transport Services, Inc. Westark Specialties, Inc. · Farley“In National By-Products, which involved a collision between a tractor-trailer rig driven by an employee of the defendant company and several other vehicles, the evidence showed that the defendant company had a policy of adjusting the brakes on its trailers once per month and of conducting an internal inspection of the brakes on its tractors every fifty thousand miles. 731 S.W.2d at 196 . By contrast, in the case at bar plaintiffs presented evidence from which the jury could find that defendants never inspected the brakes on any of the trucks they sold and that they did not care whether the brakes on the two “piggy-backed” trucks they sold Inturralde were operative or inoperative. There was also evidence from which the jury coulci find that defendants knowingly rendered the brakes on the two “piggy-backed” trucks inoperative. The jury was entitled to find that in these circumstances defendants knew or ought to have known that their placing the three-truck unit onto an interstate freeway system is conduct that will naturally and probably result in injury when, as happened here, the driver requires maximum braking power in the face of a hazard of the road, and that they nevertheless did so with reckless disregard for the consequences.”
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.