Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 146 Mont. 355 - Bollinger v. Jarrett

Bollinger v. Jarrett’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
4
states following
November 1997
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 1997

16 state decisions

801965197019801990decided

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 Baker v. Littman · Wing v. Brasher · First National Bank v. Marlowe · J. M. Hamilton Co. v. Battson · Wandell v. Johnson

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

  1. ““It is also contended that it was error for the court to render summary judgment against appellant-buyers’ counterclaim. The basis of the counterclaim was that the sellers’ action wrongfully injured the credit standing of the buyers. The only possible grounds for such a claim are libel and malicious prosecution, neither of which can be sustained here. There is no libel because any publication made in a judicial proceeding is privileged under R.C.M.1947 § 64-208. And malicious prosecution founded on a civil action is not the proper subject of a counterclaim since it requires proof of termination of the former proceeding in favor of the defendant therein. Baker v. Littman, 138 Cal.App.2d 510 , 292 P.2d 595 ; 54 C.J.S. Malicious Prosecution § 54, p. 1021.” (Emphasis added.) 146 Mont. at 360 , 406 P.2d at 837 .”
    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.