U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1953

King v. Nixon

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided August 27, 1953 · Edgerton, Fahy, Per Curiam, Washington

207 F.2d 41; 93 U.S. App. D.C. 98 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Saul G. Lichtenberg, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Ira M. Lowe and Mr. Evan T. Davis, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant., Mr. William E. Owen, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

McBride Ex Rel. I.M.S. v. Estis Well Service, L.L.C. (5th Cir. 2014)
Curry v. Giant Food Co. of DC (D.C. 1987)
Haleigh McBride v. Estis Well Service L. L. (5th Cir. 2014)
Wood v. Neuman (D.C. 2009)
Wong Bick Ling v. Dulles (District Court, District of Columbia 1954)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Court rightly ruled that recovery of exemplary or punitive damages, in a civil action for assault and battery, is not precluded by the fact that the defendant may be liable to criminal prosecution, 1 and also that the defendant’s financial condition is admissible in evidence as bearing on the amount of such damages. Brown v. Evans, C.C., 17 F. 912; affirmed, Evans v. Brown, 1883, 109 U.S. 180, 3 S.Ct. 83, 27 L.Ed. 898; notes, 16 A.L.R. 771, 798, 838, 123 A.L.R. 1115, 1122, 1136.

Affirmed.

. Language to the contrary in Huber v. Teuber, 1879, 3 MacArthur 484, 497, 10 D.C. 484, is erroneous.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.