Orrison v. Vance’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 14 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Jacron Sales Co. v. Sindorf (1976), Brewer v. Mele (1972)
3 federal appellate · 14 district · 40 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 Brown v. Suburban Cadillac, Inc. · Kennedy v. Cannon · Fresh v. Cutter · Stevenson v. Baltimore Baseball Club, Inc. · Simon v. Robinson
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The privilege may be lost, however, if the plaintiff in a defamation case can show malice, which in this context means not hatred or spite but rather a reckless disregard of truth, the use of unnecessarily abusive language, or other circumstances which would support a conclusion that the defendant acted in an ill-tempered manner or was motivated by ill-will.” (emphasis added).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘An occasion is conditionally privileged when the circumstances are such as to lead any one of several persons having a common interest in a particular subject matter correctly or reasonably to believe [good faith] that facts exist which another sharing such common interest is entitled to know.’ ” “Mutual interest in the subject matter is but one type of qualified privilege recognized in the law of defamation. The general rules governing all conditional privileges are, how ever, well-settled. A finding of conditional privilege conditionally negates the presumption of malice and shifts the burden to the plaintiff to show actual malice. Malice may be a jury question.... Absent a finding of express malice, a conditional privilege, if not abused, defeats the libel action.” [Citations omitted.] [Alteration added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. And this is as it should be. If the communication is made, not at all for the purpose of protecting interests legally cognizable, nor in the performance of a duty which the law encourages, ‘the pretense under which it is made, instead of furnishing a defense, will aggravate the case. .’ Orrison v. Vance, 262 Md. 285, 294 , 277 A.2d 573 (1971), quoting from 1 Harper and James, The Law of Torts § 5.27, p. 452 (1956).”
2 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.