green
Positive treatment
12.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958
1992
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Janice Williams v. MMO Behavioral Health Systems
Airlines, Inc., 705 F.2d 778, 784 (5th Cir. 1983) (quoting Martin v. City of New Orleans, 678 F.2d 1321, 1327 (5th Cir. 1982); Shows v. Jamison Bedding, Inc., 671 F.2d 927, 934 (5th Cir. 1982); and Bridges v. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 553 F.2d 877, 880 (5th Cir. 1977)). 24 Id. (quoting Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Floyd, 249 F.2d 396, 399 (5th Cir. 1958)). 25 Id. (quoting Floyd, 249 F.2d at 399 ). 26 Id. (quoting Bridges, 553 F.2d at 880 ) (emphasis in original). 7 Case: 19-30757 Document: 00515483367 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/09/2020 No. 19-30757 MMO contends that “the highest amount the trie…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Foradori v. Harris
“We have expressed the extent of distortion that warrants intervention by requiring such awards to be so large as to ‘shock the judicial conscience,’ ‘so gross or inordinately large as to be contrary to right reason,’ so exaggerated as to indicate ‘bias, passion, prejudice, corruption, or other improper motive,’ or as ‘clearly exceeding] that amount that any reasonable man could feel the claimant is entitled to.’ ” Caldarera, 705 F.2d at 784 (quoting Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Floyd, 249 F.2d 396, 399 (5th Cir.1958); Allen v. Seacoast Prods., Inc., 623 F.2d 355, 364 (5t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carpenter v. Tyler Independent School District
Because fixing the amount of damages requires sifting and weighing of the evidence, the jury’s conclusion demands deference, unless it is “shocking [to] the judicial conscience” or “exceeds that amount that any reasonable man could feel the claimant is entitled to.” Bridges v. Groendyke Transport, Inc., 553 F.2d 877, 880 (5th Cir.1977); Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Floyd, 249 F.2d 396, 399 (5th Cir.1957).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Simeon v. T. Smith & Son, Inc.
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Floyd, 249 F.2d 396, 399 (5th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 949 , 78 S.Ct. 913 , 2 L.Ed.2d 843 (1958).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca5 1988
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Floyd, 249 F.2d 396, 399 (5th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 949 , 78 S.Ct. 913 , 2 L.Ed.2d 843 (1958). 12 Almost half a century ago, our Court stated, "[W]hile mere excessiveness in the amount to be awarded may be cured by a remittitur, that excessiveness which results from passion and prejudice, however natural the resentment which arouses it, may not be so cured." Brabham v. Mississippi, 96 F.2d 210, 214 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 305 U.S. 636 , 59 S.Ct. 103 , 83 L.Ed. 409 (1938).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bertha Jolivette Zeno v. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, D/B/A a & P Food Stores
(2×)
Because fixing the amount of damages requires the sifting and weighing of masses of facts, the jury’s figures demand deference from the appellate court, unless they “shockpngj the judicial conscience” or “exceed that amount that any reasonable man could feel the claimant is entitled to.” Bridges v. Groendyke Transport, Inc., 553 F.2d 877, 880 (5th Cir.1977) (emphasis in original); Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Floyd, 249 F.2d 396, 399 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 949 , 78 S.Ct. 913 , 2 L.Ed.2d 843 (1958).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas W. Haley, Ann S. Haley v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.
Unless an award is “so gross or inordinately large as to be contrary to right of reason,” Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Floyd, 249 F.2d 396, 399 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 949 , 78 S.Ct. 913 , 2 L.Ed.2d 843 (1958) or so excessive as to suggest “bias, passion, prejudice, corruption, or other improper motive,” Allen v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 623 F.2d 355, 364 (5th Cir.1980) it must be allowed to stand.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Peter Joseph Caldarera, Jr., Etc. v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., and United States of America
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Floyd, 249 F.2d 396, 399 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 949 , 78 S.Ct. 913 , 2 L.Ed.2d 843 (1958). 18 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Agosta Vargas v. Tió
Complete Auto Transit v. Floyd, 249 F.2d 396, 399 (C.A. 5, 1957), cert. den., 356 U.S. 949 (1958); Potts v. Bird, 27 P.2d 745, 748 (Colo. 1933); Palmer v. Oregon Short Line R.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Royal Indemnity Company v. W. A. Curtis, by His Next Friend, A. F. Curtis
Shepherd v. Mahannah, 5 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 737 ; American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Drexlcr, 5 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 930, 932 ; Central Truck Lines, Inc., v. Lott, 5 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 722, 725 ; Digby v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 5 Cir., 1957, 239 F.2d 569, 571, 572 ; and cf. Pennsylvania Thresliermen, etc., Co. v. Gloff, 5 Cir., 1950, 238 F.2d 839 , and Complete Auto Transit, Inc., v. Floyd, 5 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 396 , 399; Pogue v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 5 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 575, 582 . 4 .
examined
Cited "see"
Har-Pen Truck Lines, Inc. v. Frederick Allen Mills, III
(4×)
See Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Floyd, supra, and its complete discussion of the applicable Georgia cases, 249 F.2d at 399-400 .
cited
Cited "see"
Continental Bus System, Inc. v. Toombs
See Complete Auto Transit v. Floyd, 5 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 396 , certiorari denied 356 U.S. 949 , 78 S. Ct. 913 , 2 L.Ed.2d 843 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Filkins v. McAllister Bros., Inc.
See also Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Floyd, 249 F.2d 396 (5th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 949 , 78 S.Ct. 913 , 2 L.Ed. 2d 843 (1958).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Rambert L. Simmons v. Avisco, Local 713, Textile Workers Union of America
See also Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Floyd, 249 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1957). 16 .
I. H. SPEARS, Appellant,
v.
SHELL OIL COMPANY, a Corporation, and Humble Oil & Refining Company, a Corporation, Appellees
v.
SHELL OIL COMPANY, a Corporation, and Humble Oil & Refining Company, a Corporation, Appellees
15760_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 6, 1957.
249 F.2d 396
I. H. Spears, Pasadena, Cal., in pro. per. . ., Stanley, Gillis & Kirby, McCutchen, Black, Harnagel & Greene, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Orr, Chambers, Barnes.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
. This matter came before the Court on motion of appellees to dismiss appeal.
Appellees were represented in court by counsel. No appearance was made by Appellant or anyone in his behalf.
It appearing that the notice of appeal was filed on February 27, 1956, and that no bond on appeal has been filed as required by Rule 73(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., nor has the docket fee been paid.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.