Guest v. Berardinelli’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 district · 18 state decisions

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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We agree with the district court that the same set of facts required to prove lack of probable cause and misuse of process in the .[malicious-abuse-of-process] context are necessary to prove lack of justification in the prima facie tort context. The undisputed facts in our discussion of [malicious-abuse-of-process] above support a prima facie showing that Defendants! actions were justified because Defendants had probable cause to file suit and did not engage in any overt misuse .of process.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 149 F. Supp. 3d 1312 - Amaya v. Bregman · 762 F. Supp. 2d 1298 - Mosley v. Titus

2. “This is particularly true when evaluating probable cause in the context of MAP suits against attorneys. In Durham, we relied on the notions that attorneys have some measure of freedom in representing their clients, and we did not want to chill an attorney’s vigorous representation of the client; accordingly, except in unusual circumstances, an attorney should not have to worry about asserted duties to non-clients. Durham [v. Guest], 2007-NMCA-144, ¶¶20-22 , 142 N.M. 817 , 171 P.3d 756 . Out-of-state authority supports application of this principle to the issue of probable cause in [malicious-abuse-of-process] cases against attorneys. The California Supreme Court recently stated, “Only those actions that any reasonable attorney would agree are totally and completely without merit may form the basis for a malicious prosecution suit.” Zamos v. Stroud, 32 Cal.4th 958 , 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 54 , 87 P.3d 802, 810 (2004). Similarly, the Connecticut Supreme Court said, “ ‘The vitality of our common law system is dependent upon the freedom of attorneys to pursue novel, although potentially unsuccessful, legal theories.’ ” Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP, 281 Conn. 84 , 912 A.2d 1019, 1032 (2007) (quoting Wong v. Tabor, 422 N.E.2d 1279, 1288 (Ind.Ct.App.1981)). These pronouncements are consistent with our own Rules of Professional Conduct and the ABA Comment printed immediately following in our annotated rules volumes. See Rule 16-301 NMRA (“A lawyer shall not bring o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 762 F. Supp. 2d 1298 - Mosley v. Titus

3. “malicious character assassination of the Durhams and of maliciously abusing process to obtain their employment and medical records outside the scope of discovery or in violation of protective orders with the intent to humiliate the Durhams, to cause or threaten them to lose their employment, to extort and intimidate them to give up their rights, and to retaliate against them for not accepting Allstate’s settlement offer.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Guest v. Allstate Insurance