Terwilliger v. . Wands’s Empirical Analysis
1858
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently June 1991 · most notably Reporters' Ass'n of America v. Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n (1906), Renfro Drug Co. v. Lawson (1942)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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.
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where words are spoken to one person, and he repeats them to another, in consequence of which the party of whom they are spoken sustains damages, the repetition is, as a general rule, a wrongful act, rendering the person repeating them liable in like manner as if he alone had uttered them. The special damages in such a case are not a natural, legal consequence of the first speaking of the words, but of the wrongful act of repeating them, and would not have occurred but for the repetition; and the party who repeats them is alone liable for damages,”—citing Ward v. Weeks, supra, and other cases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It is not necessary, in the present case, to decide whether the proposition is law.””
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.