Wild v. Rarig’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 100 district · 203 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 362 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Hunt v. IBM Mid America Employees Federal Credit Union (1986), Wilmington Trust Co. v. Clark (1981)
28 federal appellate · 100 district · 203 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Parham v. Cortese · United States v. Isaacs · Johnson v. Moses · Cederstrand v. Lutheran Brotherhood · Hartmann v. Time, Inc.
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 362 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We are of the opinion that when a plaintiff seeks to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract he is limited to damages flowing only from such breach except in exceptional cases where the defendant’s breach of contract constitutes or is accompanied by an independent tort.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'there must be something of an affirmative nature designed to prevent, and which does prevent, discovery of the cause of action'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Dr. Wild’s claim of wrongful interference with business relationships by means of defamation is essentially a part of his cause of action for defamation and consequently comes within [the Minnesota] 2-year statute of limitations. The defamation which is the means used to interfere with his business relationships action is the same defamation that Dr. Wild seeks to recover damages for under his defamation claim. It seems to us that, regardless of what the suit is labeled, the thing done to cause any damage to Dr. Wild eventually stems from and grew out of the defamation.. Business interests may be impaired by false statements about the plaintiff which, because they adversely affect his reputation in the community, induce third persons not to enter into business relationships with him. We feel this phase of the matter has crystallized into the law of defamation and is governed by the special rules which have developed in that field.”
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.