Arnold v. Ingram’s Empirical Analysis
1913
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably 98 Wis. 2d 555 - Maynard v. Port Publications, Inc. (1980), 54 Cal. 2d 643 - Maidman v. Jewish Publications, Inc. (1960)
1 federal appellate · 26 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 Coleman v. MacLennan · Calkins v. Sumner · Shurtleff v. Stevens · Peterson v. Western Union Telegraph Co. · Buckstaff v. Hicks
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Every citizen has a right to comment on those acts of public men which concern him as a citizen of the state, if he do not make his commentary a cloak for malice and slander. Those who fill a public position must not be too thin-skinned in reference to comments made upon them. It would often happen that observations would be made upon public men which they knew from the bottom of their hearts were undeserved and unjust; yet they must bear with them and submit to be misunderstood for a time, because all knew that the criticism of the press was the best security for the proper discharge of public duties.” See, also, Bearce v. Bass, 88 Me. 521 , 34 Atl. 411 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Grell v. Hoard““The defamatory words must refer to some ascertained or ascertainable person, and that person must be the plaintiff. If the words used really contain no reflection on any particular individual, no averment or innuendo can make them defamatory. ‘An innuendo cannot make the person certain which was uncertain before.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.