Goo v. Continental Casualty Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that, at trial, appellant had failed to adduce sufficient evidence that appellees acted maliciously, oppressively, wantonly, or fraudulently for the question of punitive damages to be submitted to the jury
• “willful, malicious, wanton or aggravated wrongs where a defendant has acted with a reckless indifference to the rights of another”
• “In this jurisdiction we have long recognized the wisdom of allowing punitive damages for willful, malicious, wanton or aggravated wrongs where a defendant has acted with a reckless indifference to the rights of another.”
• “In this jurisdiction we have long recognized the wisdom of allowing punitive damages for willful, malicious, wanton or aggravated wrongs where a defendant has acted with a reckless indifference to the rights of another.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).