Powers v. Houghton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Among those malicious civil suits giving a right of action he (Cooley) enumerates arrest, attachment, garnishment, insanity cases, injunctions, receivers, and other suits that interfere with person or property. Under the last class of cases, he says (page 348): “ ‘So a suit for malicious prosecution will lie where the plaintiff’s property or business has been interfered with, by the appointment of a receiver, the granting of an injunction, or by writ of replevin. -» # * “ In our own State, the case of Brand v. Hinchman, 68 Mich. 590 ( 36 N. W. 664 , 13 Am. St. Rep. 362 ), is to some extent applicable. There, an attachment was sworn out by defendant, ’Hinchman, and placed in the sheriff’s hands for service. A deputy visited Brand’s store, but made no actual levy, the subject-matter of the suit being adjusted. The court found, however, that there was at least a technical taking and possession of Brand’s property, and the proofs showed that damage resulted to his business as a result of the swearing out of the writ (without probable cause). The case of Antcliff v. June, 81 Mich. 477 ( 45 N. W. 1019 , 10 L. R. A. 621, 21 Am. St. Rep. 533 ), is authority for the proposition that a gross and fraudulent abuse of the process of the court, resulting in damage, gives a right of action to the person sustaining the damage.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Krzyszke v. Kamin