Uken v. Sloat’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2002 · most notably Bego v. Gordon (1987), Tibke v. McDougall (1992)
27 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 St. Amant v. Thompson · Hughes-Johnson Co. v. Dakota Midland Hospital · Maryland Casualty Co. v. Delzer · Wollman v. Graff
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] qualified privilege exists for a communication between interested individuals, if made without malice. Our first line of inquiry, then, should be to determine if the communication involved was between interested individuals.... It does not take an exercise in deep logic to conclude that parents of children attending school in a district under the supervision of [the superintendent] are “interested” individuals as regards [the superintendent’s] effect on that school district.... The parties at the January 9,1978, meeting all are within the realm of “interested” individuals. We find all [the parents] interested in the communication herein involved.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“`The real test of whether a defendant's conduct is reckless so as to constitute actual malice is whether he in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publications.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In reviewing the trial court’s order granting summary judgment, we premise our decision on the principle that affirmance of such a judgment is proper if there exists any basis which would support the trial court’s ruling. Maryland Casualty Company v. Delzer, 283 N.W.2d 244 (S.D.1979). Second, we must determine if the communication by appellees was made with malice. If so, appellees’ qualified privilege under SDCL 20-11-5(3) is negated. SDCL 20-11-5 provides that: “In the cases provided for in subdivisions (3) and (4) of this section, malice is not inferred from the communication or publication.” Appellant’s complaint does set out general allegations of malice in an attempt to defeat appellees’ qualified privilege. However, a specific showing of malice is required for purposes of raising a genuine issue of material fact, and this burden was not met by the complaint, deposition, or affidavit. Hughes-Johnson Co. v. Dakota-Midland Hospital, 86 S.D. 361 , 195 N.W.2d 519 (1972); see also SDCL 15-6-56(e). Malice cannot be presumed; the party bearing this burden of proof must establish that there was a reckless disregard for the truth on the part of the accused. Wollman v. Graff, 287 N.W.2d 104 (S.D.1979).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Petersen v. Dacy · Ruple v. Weinaug
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.