Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 263 N.C. 507 - Johnson v. Gray

Johnson v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
2
states following
May 2003
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently May 2003

3 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

9019651970198019902000decided

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 Louis Kamm, Inc. v. Flink · Coleman v. . Whisnant · Kirby v. Reynolds · Johnson v. Graye

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

  1. “[w]e think the general rule prevails that unlawful interference with the freedom of contract is actionable, whether it consists in maliciously procuring breach of a contract, or in preventing the making of a contract when this is done, not in the legitimate exercise of the defendant’s own rights, but with design to injure the plaintiff, or gaining some advantage at his expense. ... In Kamm v. Flink, 113 N.J.L., 582 , 99 A.L.R., 1 , it was said: “Maliciously inducing a person not to enter into a contract with another, which he would otherwise have entered into, is actionable if damage results.” The word “malicious” used in referring to malicious interference with formation of a contract does not import ill will, but refers to an interference with design of injury to plaintiff or gaining some advantage at his expense.”
    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.