Alianell v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably Hilfirty v. Shipman (1996), 312 Pa. Super. 92 - Junod v. Bader (1983)
3 federal appellate · 10 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 Mayer v. Walter · Groda v. American Stores Company · Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is clear that in these circumstances appellant has no ground for maintaining an action to recover damages for the alleged malicious prosecution. By compromising and settling the criminal charges made against him, appellant destroyed an essential element in his case. To entitle plaintiff to recover in an action for malicious prosecution, it must clearly appear that the prosecution was without probable cause: . . . The settlement of the criminal case negatives [sic] the averment that the prosecution was made without probable cause. “Where the termination of a criminal prosecution or civil action has been brought about by the procurement of defendant therein, or by compromise and settlement, an action for malicious prosecution cannot be maintained.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“agreed to withdraw the charges in consideration of a payment of $20 and the return of the goods in question”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hilfirty v. Shipman
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.