Calvat v. Franklin’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2004
2 district · 6 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 United States v. Iron Silver Mining Co. · Cone v. Montgomery · Justice Mining Co. v. Lee · Cohen v. Fox · Leahy v. Dunlap
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In all actions in which damages are assessed by a jury for a wrong done to the person or to personal or real property and the injury complained of is attended by cireumstances of fraud, malice, or willful and wanton conduct, the jury, in addition to the actual damages sustained by such party, may award him reasonable exemplary damages. The amount of such reasonable exemplary damages shall not exceed an amount which is equal to the amount of the actual damages awarded to the injured party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“There is no language in the section that compels a construction that only a jury may try the issue of exemplary damages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.