Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 107 MICH 33 - Morgan v. Andrews

Morgan v. Andrews’s Empirical Analysis

1895

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
9
states following
August 1994
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 1994

4 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

4018951900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Rice v. . Manley · Chipley v. Atkinson · Benton v. Pratt · Ross v. Miner · Freedman v. Campfield

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Fraud is seldom shown by direct proof, but by facts and circumstances taken together, and the inferences to be drawn therefrom. Ross v. Miner, 67 Mich. 412 ( 35 N. W. 60 ). The rule is that fraud may be proved, the same as any other fact, by facts and circumstances which satisfy the mind, and it is a question for the jury when there is any evidence to warrant the finding. Freedman v. Campfield, 92 Mich. 118 ( 52 N. W. 630 ).””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Merely to persuade a person to break his contract may not be wrongful in law or fact; still, if the persuasion be used for the indirect purpose of injuring the plaintiff, or benefiting the defendant at the expense of the plaintiff, it is a malicious act, which, in law and in fact, is a wrongful act, and therefore an actionable act, if injury issues from it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “against a third person who maliciously interfered with the contract for his own gain or profit.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.