Bromund v. Holt’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably 72 Wis. 2d 282 - Lister v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System (1976), 80 Wis. 2d 525 - Cords v. Anderson (1977)
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 35 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 214 Cal. App. 2d 603 - Maxon v. Security Insurance of New Haven Connecticut · Melvin v. Pence · Mezullo v. Maletz · Fisher and Fisher v. Payne · Bailey v. McGill
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The public policy aspects of our holding on this appeal are easily apparent. On the one hand, surely citizens should be given some protection against the irresponsible instituting against them of civil or criminal proceedings by other persons, even law enforcement officers. [Citation omitted]. On the other hand, law enforcement and the protection of society from crime would likely be adversely affected if law enforcement agents were subject to liability in damages for simple negligence in the performance of their duties if the citizens they charge with crime should not be convicted. [Citation omitted]. The requirement, established for generations, in malicious prosecution of the proof of malice and want of probable cause seems consistent with both of these considerations. In any event, no sufficient reason appears why this time-honored requirement in malicious prosecution should be now discarded in favor of an action of negligence, as here, for careless performance of duty and failure to make due inquiry, without a showing of malice and want of probable cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State“It is for the best interests of society that those who offend against the laws of the state shall be promptly punished, and that any citizen who has reasonable grounds to believe that the law has been violated shall have the right to cause the arrest of the person whom he honestly and in good faith believes to be the offender. For the purpose of protecting him in so doing, it is the generally established rule that if he has reasonable grounds for his belief, and acts thereon in good faith in causing the arrest, he shall not be subjected to damages merely be cause the accused is not convicted. The rule is focused on the grounds of public policy in order to encourage the exposure of crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State“even if a person employed by the public to assist in law enforcement ... does not enjoy immunity, ... the same considerations of public policy which require proof of malice as an element of an action for malicious prosecution or defamation under these circumstances must exclude liability founded upon mere negligence. In our opinion, the interest in freedom from unjustifiable criminal litigation is, as a matter of policy, not protected from unintentional tort.”
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.