190 So. 2d 825 - Allen v. Leybourne’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Brunswick Corp. v. Vineberg (1967), 99 Ill. App. 3d 493 - Nemeth v. Banhalmi (1981)
1 federal appellate · 32 state decisions — followed in 11 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.
Relationships
Relies on Israel v. Wood Dolson Co. · Hornstein v. Podwitz · Lamb v. S. Cheney & Son · Chipley v. Atkinson · 159 So. 2d 893 - Franklin v. Brown
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Dean Prosser, in discussing the tort of interference with contractual relations states that: `The agreement need not, however, be enforceable by the plaintiff as a contract * * * The law of course does not object to the voluntary performance of agreements merely because it will not enforce them, and it indulges in the assumption that even unenforceable promises will be carried out if no third person interferes. Accordingly, it usually is held that contracts which are voidable by reason of the statute of frauds, formal defects, a lack of consideration, lack of mutuality or even uncertainty of terms, still afford a basis for a tort action when the defendant interferes with their performance.' (Emphasis supplied)"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"There is no essential reason for refusing to protect such non-commercial expectancies, at least where there is a strong probability that they would have been realized. * * * The problem appears in reality to be one of satisfactory proof that the loss has been suffered, instead of the existence of a ground of tort liability."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. the existence of a fixed expectancy; 2. intentional interference with the expectancy through tortious conduct; 3. causation (a reasonable probability that the expectancy would have been carried out, but for the wrongful acts of the defendant); and 4. damages. [6]”
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.