Bentley v. Bunton’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 141 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 164 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably In the Interest of J.F.C. (2002), Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. and Brien Garcia v. Nury Chapa (2006)
6 federal appellate · 141 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler))
Relationships
Applies 47 U.S.C. § 531
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. · St. Amant v. Thompson
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 164 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A lack of care or an injurious motive in making a statement is not alone proof of actual malice, but care and motive are factors to be considered. An understandable misinterpretation of ambiguous facts does not show actual malice, but inherently improbable assertions and statements made on information that is obviously dubious may show actual malice. A failure to investigate fully is not evidence of actual malice; a purposeful avoidance of the truth is. Imagining that something may be true is not the same as belief.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... [A]n award of mental anguish damages will survive a legal sufficiency challenge when the plaintiffs have introduced direct evidence of the nature, duration, and severity of their mental anguish, thus establishing a substantial disruption in the plaintiffs’ daily routine. Such evidence, whether in the form of the claimants’ own testimony, that of third parties, or that of experts, is more likely to provide the factfinder with adequate details to assess mental anguish claims. Although we stop short of requiring this type of evidence in all cases in which mental anguish damages are sought, the absence of this type of evidence, particularly when it can be readily supplied or procured by the plaintiff, justifies close judicial scrutiny of other evidence offered on this element of damages. When claimants fail to present direct evidence of the nature, duration, or severity of their anguish, we apply traditional “no evidence” standards to determine whether the record reveals any evidence of “a high degree of mental pain and distress” that is “more than mere worry, anxiety, vexation, embar rassment, or anger” to support any award of damages.”
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.