Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 149 VA 618 - Penick v. Ratcliffe

Penick v. Ratcliffe’s Empirical Analysis

1927

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Elder v. Holland (1967), Donohoe Construction Co. v. Mount Vernon Associates (1988)

1 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

1001927193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Myers v. Hodges · Gosewisch v. Doran · Brown v. Globe Printing Co. · State Ex Rel. West v. McCafferty · Williams Printing Co. v. Saunders

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

  1. ““In a note to 16 A. L. R. 743, is this statement of the rule: “ ‘As to the degree of relevancy or pertinency necessary to bring the alleged defamatory matter within the privilege, the courts favor a liberal rule. Thus, the matter to which the privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its irrelevancy and impropriety.’ “In the light of the foregoing statements of the law, were the offending charges material, relevant or pertinent to the relief that might have been legitimately sought under the petition into which they were incorporated? We think they were. They were pertinent as a primary proposition and our judgment here is fortified by the fact that they must be so construed whenever the matter is in doubt. Public policy demands that within all reasonable limits a litigant should have the right to state his case as he sees fit.””
    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.