green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 7×
64.1 score
“it is well 4 established that a jury may award punitive damages under section 1983 either when a defendant's 5 conduct was driven by evil motive or intent, or when it involved a reckless or callous indifference 6 to the constitutional rights of others.”
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Peo v. Debusk
But see Morgan v. Woessner , 997 F.2d 1244, 1261 (9th Cir. 1993) (declining to grant a new trial because “juror’s observations about sending messages to City Hall and speculation as to the amount of Morgan’s attorney’s fees simply do n ot constitute the sort of ‘extraneous prejudicial information’ t hat falls within the scope of Fed .
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Segura
it is well 4 established that a jury may award punitive damages under section 1983 either when a defendant's 5 conduct was driven by evil motive or intent, or when it involved a reckless or callous indifference 6 to the constitutional rights of others.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ward v. National Credit Systems, Inc.
the juror's observations about sending messages to city hall and speculation as to the amount of morgan's attorney's fees simply do not constitute the sort of 'extraneous prejudicial information' that falls within the scope of .
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sweet v. Mesa, City of
it is well established that a "jury may award punitive damages under 27 section 1983 either when a defendant's conduct was driven by evil motive or intent, or when it involved a reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of others.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sweet v. Mesa, City of
it is well established that a "jury may award punitive damages under 27 section 1983 either when a defendant's conduct was driven by evil motive or intent, or when it involved a reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of others.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Bernard Cote v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
it should make no difference whether the imposition of damages was by a federal or state court or whether on federal or state claims. for this purpose there is only one due process clause.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Diallobe Balawa Dorsey v. Commonwealth
when a citizen expresses his or her desire not to cooperate, continued questioning cannot be deemed consensual.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Fox v. Encounters Intl
the two clauses should be applied in the same manner when two situations present identical questions differing only in that one involves a proscription against the federal government and the other a proscription against the states.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thompson
(ECF No. 52 at 22.) However, as to § 1983 claims, “[i]t is well- 10 established that a ‘jury may award punitive damages . . . either when a defendant’s 11 conduct . . . involved a reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of 12 others.’” Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ImprimisRx, LLC v. OSRX, Inc.
Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1258 (9th Cir. 1993). 22 The Supreme Court “has pointed to three guideposts: ‘(1) the degree of reprehensibility of 23 the defendant’s misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered 24 by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive 25 damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable 26 cases.’” S. Union Co., 563 F.3d at 791 (quoting State Farm, 538 U.S. at 418 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Minden v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 23 1993) (noting that option of a new trial is required under the Seventh Amendment).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rosemary H. Mullins v. County of Fresno
Punitive Damages 17 In a section 1983 action, punitive damages may be awarded when a “defendant’s conduct 18 was driven by evil motive or intent, or when it involved a reckless or callous indifference to the 19 constitutional rights of others.” Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir. 1993). 20 Section 1983 punitive damages “can also be awarded to address ‘malicious, wanton, or 21 oppressive acts or omissions.’” Knapps, 647 F. Supp. 2d at 1171 (citing Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 22 800, 807 (9th Cir. 2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Briggs v. Yi
Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of James Borden Mr. Briggs moves to exclude the report and testimony by Defendants’ expert, James Borden, maintaining that Mr. Borden is “not qualified to testify on any matter in this case and his opinions are neither relevant nor reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards set forth in Daubert.”171 Defendants respond that Mr. Borden is “qualified to provide expert testimony on police practices,” and that his opinions are relevant, based on sufficient facts, and reliable.172 Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that a person “q…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Meyer v. Mittal
Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1256 (9th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ingall v. Rabago
Punitive Damages In Section1983 cases, punitive damages are recoverable “when the defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983); Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Doe v. County of San Diego
Punitive Damages 15 Punitive damages may be awarded on a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 16 “either when a defendant’s conduct was driven by evil motive or intent, or when it involved 17 a reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of others.” Morgan v. 18 Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (cleaned up).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Garza v. City of Salem
The court “should determine whether a punitive damage award exceeds the amount necessary to accomplish the goals of punishment and deterrence in deciding whether it is grossly excessive.” Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1258 (9th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Birrell v. DiTomas
Co. v. 2 Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 17 (1991); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 , 167 n.13 (1985); Dang v. 3 Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 807 (9th Cir. 2005); Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir. 4 1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Motley v. State of Nevada
Punitive Damages 10 In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]t is well-established that a ‘jury may award punitive damages 11 under section 1983 either when a defendant’s conduct was driven by evil motive or intent, or 12 when it involved a reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of others.’” 13 Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Davis v. Mason County, 14 927 F.2d 1473, 1485 (9th Cir. 1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tyvoll v. City of Portland
A plaintiff claiming punitive damages in a 1983 action must show that the defendant’s conduct “was driven by evil motive or intent, or . . . involved a reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of others.” Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moore-Brown v. City of North Las Vegas Police Department
Co., 134 P. 753 , 769 (Nev. 1913)). 23 Punitive damages are recoverable in a § 1983 action “when a defendant’s conduct was 24 driven by evil motive or intent, or when it involved a reckless or callous indifference to the 25 constitutional rights of others.” Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 807 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting 1 Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir. 1993)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Haile Neil v. County of Colusa
(2×)
(ECF No. 48-1 at 16 (citing 16 Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir. 1993)).) In opposition, Plaintiffs contend a 17 pleading of deliberate indifference also meets the threshold for an award of punitive damages 18 under both federal and state law.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Evans v. Myrick
Punitive Damages It is “well-established that a ‘jury may award punitive damages under section 1983 either when a defendant’s conduct was driven by evil motive or intent, or when it involved a reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of others.” Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 807 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir. 1993)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Barajas Centeno v. City of Carlsbad
Dang v. Cross, 422 2 F.3d 800, 809 (9th Cir. 2005); Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir. 1993). 3 It is subject to summary adjudication when the plaintiff fails to produce evidence raising 4 a material question of fact regarding aggravating circumstances. 5 Centeno failed to respond to Officer Defendants’ argument.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rawlings v. Kunnath
Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1252 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Clark v. Guerrero
District JudgeéJennifer-A. Dorsey 17 April 6, 2021 18 19 20 21 22 Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1254 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). '9 Matter of Gober, 100 F.3d 1195, 1205 (5th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PS) Lull v. County of Placer
Claim Four: Unreasonable Seizure 2 “[T]he police may ‘seize’ citizens for brief, investigatory stops.” Morgan v. Woessner, 3 997 F.2d 1244, 1252 (9th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mendoza v. Rio Rico Medical & Fire District
Ariz. June 1, 2018), punitive 9 damages are allowed under § 1983 “when a defendant's conduct was driven by evil motive 10 or intent, or when it involved a reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights 11 of others,” Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Smith v. Wade, 12 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983)). 13 In Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), they allege that Ibarra and Flores 14 were working within the scope of their employment when they committed their wrongful 15 acts.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PS) Lull v. County of Placer
Claim Three: Unreasonable Seizure 9 “[T]he police may ‘seize’ citizens for brief, investigatory stops.” Morgan v. Woessner, 10 997 F.2d 1244, 1252 (9th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of New Hampshire v. Ernest Jones
See INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216-17 (1984) (“[I]f the person refuses to answer and the police take additional steps . . . to obtain an answer,” then a seizure may have occurred); Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1253-54 (9th Cir. 1993) (concluding that an individual was seized, in part, because he communicated to a police officer his unwillingness to cooperate and the officer continued to demand compliance).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Perry v. County of Kern
It is 25 “well-establish ed that that a ‘jury may award punitive damages under section 1983 either when a 2 indifference to the constitutional rights of others.’” Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 807 (9th Cir. 2005) 3 (quoting Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir. 1993)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rebecka Jackson-Moeser v. Juno Armstrong
Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1253 (9th Cir. 1993). 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey
(2×)
Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 453-54 , 113 S.Ct. 2711 , 125 L.Ed.2d 366 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted) (Fourteenth Amendment case); Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir.1993) (finding that the Supreme Court’s analysis under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies equally under the Fifth Amendment), cited with approval in EEOC v. Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Booke v. County of Fresno
Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District
See United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (observing that where most people who transverse a checkpoint are His *1175 panic, the fact that a particular person transversing it is Hispanic is of little value in establishing reasonable suspicion); Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1254 (9th Cir.1993) (holding that a tip. to look out for a black person, without more, does not give rise to reasonable suspicion to stop anyone).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ashley Andrews v. Robert Raphaelson
(2×)
“We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial or remittitur because of the size of a punitive damages award.” Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1266 (9th Cir.1993). 1 A district court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal rule.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Knapps v. City of Oakland
In § 1983 cases, punitive damages are recoverable “when the defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 , 103 S.Ct. 1625 , 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983); Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Juan Vasquez-Rosales
The reason- able suspicion/probable cause framework remains binary in nature, see Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1252 (9th Cir. 1993), with the proviso that under the border search doc- trine, law enforcement may conduct certain searches and sei- zures at the border without any suspicion, United States v. Alfonso, 759 F.2d 728, 733-34 (9th Cir. 1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Miller v. City of Simi Valley
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The dissent’s analogy to the Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1254 (9th Cir. 1993), where the officers acted primarily on a tip that “essentially made all black men suspect,” does not fit this case.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Miller v. City of Simi Valley
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The dissent’s analogy to the Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1254 (9th Cir. 1993), where the officers acted primarily on a tip that “essentially made all black men suspect,” does not fit this case.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Southern Union Co. v. Irvin
(4×)
We do so in light of the possibility that additional evidence might be submitted at a new trial that could affect the calculation of a proper punitive damage ratio, and moreover, in recognition that, while we are not required to do so in every case, "[t]o avoid any conflict with the Seventh Amendment, the preferable course is to afford the party awarded the grossly excessive punitive damages . . . the option of either accepting the remittitur of the punitive damage award or a new trial on that issue." Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1258-59 (9th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Southern Union Co. v. Irvin
(2×)
We do so in light of the possibility that additional evidence might be submitted at a new trial that could affect the calculation of a proper punitive damage ratio, and moreover, in recognition that, while we are not required to do so in every case, “[t]o avoid any conflict with the Seventh Amend- ment, the preferable course is to afford the party awarded the grossly excessive punitive damages . . . the option of either accepting the remittitur of the punitive damage award or a new trial on that issue.” Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Diamond v. Digital Interactive Associates, Inc. (In re IVDS Interactive Acquisition Partners)
Even if we were to consider these concerns, however, the Dambros were not prejudiced by the district court’s failure to make a written record of its reasons for accepting the punitive award per Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir.1993).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Accurate Recycling Corp.
Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1258 (9th Cir.1993) (the option of a new trial is required by the Seventh Amendment’s guaranty of trial by jury).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nance v. Kentucky National Insurance
Because the parties agree that BMW applies in the Fifth Amendment context, and there appears no sound reason to apply a different excessiveness test in the Fifth Amendment context as opposed to the Fourteenth Amendment context, Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir.1993) ("The two Clauses should be applied in the same manner when two situations present identical questions differing only in that one involves a proscription against the federal government and the other a proscription against the States.”), we apply BMW. 6 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nelson v. Giurbino
Smith, 461 U.S. at 56 , 103 S.Ct. 1625 ; Dubner v. City and County of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959 (9th Cir.2001); Mitchell, 75 F.3d at 527 n. 7; Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dang v. Cross
In light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Smith, we have recognized that “[i]t is well-established that a ‘jury may award punitive damages under section 1983 either when a defendant’s conduct was driven by evil motive or intent, or when it involved a reckless or callous indifference to the con- stitutional rights of others.’ ” Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1485 (9th Cir. 1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
H.N. Dang v. Gilbert Cross
In light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Smith , we have recognized that “[i]t is well-established that a ‘jury may award punitive damages under section 1983 either when a defendant’s conduct was driven by evil motive or intent, or when it involved a reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of others.’ ” Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1485 (9th Cir.1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Morales
Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1252 (9th Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {11} New Mexico recognizes a fourth type of police-citizen encounter, a community caretaking encounter, which may or may not implicate the Fourth Amendment.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Evans v. Buffington Harbor River Boats, LLC
(2×)
This relates to the individual juror's thought process during deliberation and not upon extraneous prejudicial information which is pertinent to the case. [8] See Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1261-62 (9th Cir.1993) (holding that information about juror's speculation on amount of attorney fees would not support motion for a new trial), cert. dismissed 510 U.S. 1033 , 114 S.Ct. 671 , 126 L.Ed.2d 640 (1994).
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
William H. MELCHER, Acting Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Et Al., Appellants
v.
William H. MELCHER, Acting Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Et Al., Appellants
91-2206.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jul 21, 1993.
Published
On remand from the United States Supreme Court, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2925, 124 L.Ed.2d 676, the opinion and judgment of this court filed September 16, 1992, 975 F.2d 511, are vacated. The mandate issued November 17, 1992, is hereby recalled.