Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 265 S.C. 563 - Ruff v. Eckerds Drugs, Inc.

Ruff v. Eckerds Drugs, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably DeLaurentis v. City of New Haven (1991), Janetka v. Dabe (1989)

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions

13019751980199020002010decided

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 Parrott v. Plowden Motor Co. · Prosser v. Parsons · State v. Hill · Margolis v. Telech · Elletson v. Dixie Home Stores

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

  1. “[A]n action for malicious prosecution should not be available, where, as here, both charges arise out of the same set of circumstances.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) the institution or continuation of original judicial proceedings, either civil or criminal, (2) by, or at the instance of, the defendant, (3) termination of such proceeding in plaintiffs favor, (4) malice in instituting such proceedings, (5) want of probable cause, and (6) resulting injury or damage.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “By probable cause is meant the extent of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecution that the person charged was guilty of a crime for which he has been charged, and only those facts and circumstances which were or should have been known to the prosecutor at the time he instituted the prosecution should be considered.”
    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.