Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 19 WYO 463 - Boyer v. Bugher

Boyer v. Bugher’s Empirical Analysis

1912

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
February 1986
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 1986

2 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

8019121920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Stewart v. Sonneborn · Stubbs v. Mulholland · Holliday v. Holliday · Carp v. Queen Insurance · Ahrens & Ott Manufacturing Co. v. Hoeher

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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “‘ ‘ As to what facts are sufficient to show probable cause is a question of law for the court, and whether such facts are proved by the evidence is a question for the jury. The court should group in its instructions the facts which the evidence tends to prove, and then instruct the jury that, if they find such facts to be established, there was or was not probable cause, and that their verdict must be accordingly.’ It is not competent for the court to give to the jury a definition of probable cause, and instruct them to find for or against the defendant according as they may determine that the facts are within or without the definition. ’ ’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"According to the general, but not the universal, opinion, it is error to leave to the jury not only to determine the facts but also whether they constitute probable cause; the court, not the jury, should draw that inference. The court may take a special verdict and determine the question of probable cause thereon as a matter of law, or it may instruct the jury hypothetically within the range of facts which the evidence tends to establish as to what constitutes probable cause, and thus leave it to the jury to determine only the facts. ’ ’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Legal malice is shown when it appears that the prosecution was instituted from any improper or wrong motive.””
    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.