Womack v. Eldridge’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 28 district · 214 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 457 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988), Petyan v. Ellis (1986)
60 federal appellate · 28 district · 214 state decisions — followed in 13 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 Hughes v. Moore · 11 Utah 2d 289 - Samms v. Eccles · Kirksey v. Jernigan · Moore v. Jefferson Hospital, Inc. · Bowles v. May
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 457 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We adopt the view that a cause of action will lie for emotional distress, unaccompanied by physical injury, provided four elements are shown: One, the wrongdoer’s conduct was intentional or reckless. This element is satisfied where the wrongdoer had the specific purpose of inflicting emotional distress or where he intended his specific conduct and knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result. Two, the conduct was outrageous and intolerable in that it offends against the generally accepted standards of decency and morality. This requirement is aimed at limiting frivolous suits and avoiding litigation in situations where only bad manners and mere hurt feelings are involved. Three, there was a causal connection between the wrongdoer’s conduct and the emotional distress. Four, the emotional distress was severe.”
56 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'. . . [T]he best considered view recognizes an action for severe emotional distress, though not accompanied by bodily impact or physical injury, where the defendant intentionally engaged in some conduct toward the plaintiff, (a) with the purpose of inflicting emotional distress, or, (b) where any reasonable person would have known that such would result; and his actions are of such a nature as to be considered outrageous and intolerable in that they offend against the generally accepted standards of decency and morality.’ ” 210 S.E.2d at 147-148 .”
3 later decisions 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.