Fikes v. Furst’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
12 district · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably State v. Sewell (2009), Woodhull v. Meinel (2008)
12 district · 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 Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. · Thompson Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Western States Medical Center et al. · Ollman v. Evans · M & M Rental Tools, Inc. v. Milchem, Inc. · Ciup v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he primary basis of an action for libel or defamation is contained in the damage that results from the destruction of or harm to that most personal and prized acquisition, one's reputation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Gjreater protection is given to the interest in an existing contract than to the interest in acquiring prospective contractual relations. Thus, for a claim based on ... an existing contract, the plaintiff must still prove that the defendant acted with an improper motive or improper means, but the improper motive need not be the sole motive. ... [Additionally,] more conduct will be privileged for interference with prospective contracts than will be privileged for interference with existing contracts. A person may be privileged to interfere with a prospective contract unless the sole motive is to harm a third party; in contrast, a person may not be privileged to interfere with an existing contract, even if the person has mixed motives.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.