177 W. Va. 273 - Preiser v. MacQueen’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 193 W. Va. 91 - Hines v. Hills Department Stores, Inc. (1995), 183 W. Va. 695 - State v. Petrice (1990)
1 federal appellate · 22 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 164 W. Va. 112 - Hinkle v. Black · 80 Cal. App. 3d 823 - Minasian v. Sapse · Mullins v. Sanders · Nagy v. McBurney · 170 W. Va. 249 - State Ex Rel. Shorter v. Hey
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Generally, abuse of process consists of the willful or malicious misuse or misapplication of lawfully issued process to accomplish some purpose not intended or warranted by that process.’ Preiser v. MacQueen, [ 177 W.Va. 273, 279 , 352 S.E.2d 22, 28 (1985)].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The distinctive nature of an action for abuse of process, as compared with the actions for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, is that it lies for the improper use of a regularly issued process, not for maliciously causing process to issue, or for an unlawful detention of the person. The authorities are practically unanimous in holding that to maintain the action for abuse of process there must be proof of a willful and intentional abuse or misuse of the process for the accomplishment of some wrongful object — an intentional and willful perversion of it to the unlawful injury of another. As to the proof of malice, we have seen that such proof is not necessary as to the issuance, but is necessary to the use, of the process, in order to sustain an action of this character (emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“" 'To maintain an action for malicious prosecution it is essential to prove (1) that the process was malicious, (2) that it was without reasonable or probable cause, and (3) that it terminated favorably to the plaintiff.’ Syl pt. 1, Lyons v. Davy-Pocahontas Coal Co., 75 W.Va. 739 , 84 S.E.2d 744 (1915).””
2 later decisions 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.