Doughty v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably 2001 Pa. Super. 253 - Cardenas v. Schober (2001), Rienhardt v. Kelly (1999)
6 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
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 Northern Pueblos Enterprises. v. Montgomery · 67 Ohio St. 3d 87 - Firestone v. Galbreath · 99 Ill. App. 3d 493 - Nemeth v. Banhalmi · M & M Rental Tools, Inc. v. Milchem, Inc. · Wolf v. Perry
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To recover for tortious interference with an expected inheritance, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) the existence of an expectancy; (2) a reasonable certainty that the expectancy would have been realized, but for the interference; (3) intentional interference with that expectancy; (4) tortious conduct involved with interference, such as fraud, duress, or undue influence; and (5) damages.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“embraces the cause of action for tortious interference with an inheritance and states, “[o]ne who by fraud, duress or other tortious means intentionally prevents another from receiving from a third person an inheritance or gift that he would otherwise have received is subject to liability to the other for loss of the inheritance or gift.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wilson v. Fritschy“extend[s] the line of New Mexico cases acknowledging tortious interference causes of action to include a cause of action against those who intentionally and tortiously interfere with an expected inheritance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lepard v. NBD Bank
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.