Wright v. . Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1912
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1942
4 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 Zinn v. Rice · Jackson v. . Telegraph Co. · Brown v. Master · Stanford v. . Grocery Co. · Railroad Co. v. Hardware Co.
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.
“Two elements are necessary: first, an ulterior purpose; second, an act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceeding. Ib. , 355; 1 Jaggard Torts, sec. 203; Hale on Torts, sec. 185.”
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.