Chizmar v. MacKie’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2023 · most notably Carole Kolstad v. American Dental Association (1999), Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Breeden (1995)
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 51 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
Relies on Dillon v. Legg · 17 Cal. 3d 425 - Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California · Goldsboro Christian Schools, Inc. v. United States · 27 Cal. 3d 916 - Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · 48 Cal. 3d 644 - Thing v. La Chusa
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) In an action in which a claim of punitive damages is presented to the fact finder, the fact finder shall determine, concurrently with all other issues presented, whether punitive damages shall be allowed by using the standards set out in (b) of this section. ... (b) The fact finder may make an award of punitive damages only if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's conduct (1) was outrageous, including acts done with malice or bad motives; or (2) evidenced reckless indifference to the interest of another person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brandner v. Hudson“Divorce is never the direct result of actions by a third-party tortfeasor. It is the character of the spouses, and the character of the marriage itself, which determines whether a divorce will occur.... To hold a third party responsible for economic losses resulting from a divorce in such a case would extend potential liability too far. [8]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Coulson v. Steiner
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.