Front, Inc. v. Khalil’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate ·

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

1. “Commencing with this Court’s 1897 decision in Youmans v. Smith, 153 N.Y. 214 , 47 N.E. 265 (1897), we have held that absolute immunity from liability for def amation exists for oral or written statements made by attorneys in connection with a proceeding before a court “when such words and writings are material and pertinent to the questions involved” (id. at 219, 47 N.E. 265 ). There we stated that to allow such statements to be a basis for a defamation action “would be an impediment to justice, because it would hamper the search for truth and prevent making inquiries with that freedom and boldness which the welfare of society requires” (id. at 220, 47 N.E. 265 ). We also noted that where an attorney’s statements are “so needlessly defamatory as to warrant the inference of express malice,” the privilege has been abused and “protection withdrawn” (id.). Nearly a century later in Park Knoll Assoc. v. Schmidt, 59 N.Y.2d 205 , 464 N.Y.S.2d 424 , 451 N.E.2d 182 (1983), this Court held that relevant statements made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are afforded absolute protection so that those discharging a public function may speak freely to zealously represent their clients without fear of reprisal or financial hazard (see id. at 209 , 464 N.Y.S.2d 424 , 451 N.E.2d 182 ). The privilege attaches to such statements irrespective of an attorney’s motive for making them (see Wiener v. Weintraub, 22 N.Y.2d 330, 331 , 292 N.Y.S.2d 667 , 239 N.E.2d 540 [1968]).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bar Group, LLC v. Business Intelligence Advisors, Inc.

2. “privilege does not protect attorneys who are seeking to bully, harass, or intimidate their client's adversaries by threatening baseless litigation or by asserting wholly unmeritorious claims, unsupported in law and fact, in violation of counsel's ethical obligations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cline v. Reetz-Laiolo

3. “fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral, or in the conduct of his [or her] own affairs, in a matter where his [or her] interest is concerned.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 332 F. Supp. 3d 610 - Daytree at Cortland Square, Inc. v. Walsh