4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 12 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Frantz v. Johnson.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Frantz v. Johnson Anchor | green | “absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” | 3 |
| 2 | Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc. v. Bellegarde | green | “the district court is responsible to determine, as a matter of law, whether the plaintiff has offered substantial evidence of malice, in fact, to support a punitive damage instruction.” | 3 |
| 3 | ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP v. Superior Court | green | “is to avoid damages based on pure speculation and conjecture.” | 3 |
| 4 | Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Thitchener | green | “the district court is responsible to determine, as a matter of law, whether the plaintiff has offered substantial evidence of malice, in fact, to support a punitive damage instruction.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.