Ransome v. Mimms’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district ·

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

1. “The defendants find strong support for their argument in the case of Whitman v. Seaboard Airline Railroad, 107 S.C. 200 , 92 S.E. 861 (1917). There the plaintiff, who was injured in a railroad accident, alleged that because of the fraud of the defendant railroad he did not bring suit for damages within the two-year statute of limitations. The defendant demurred. The lower court ruled on the demurrer on a motion for directed verdict and overruled the motion. The Supreme Court held that the motion should have been granted. The court agreed with the defendant in his argument that the plaintiff’s injury was based on the loss of a judgment he would have secured had the action been brought within the two-year limitation. The court stated that if the jury were allowed to make its estimate of the injury, it would be a substitution of their judgment for that of an unknown and unknowable jury. The basis of recovery would have been speculative (what a previous jury would have done), and speculative damages are not recoverable. Although that decision appears to be contrary to the considerable weight of authority in other jurisdictions, it is under the Erie rule, binding upon this court, if it would bar recovery in the state courts of South Carolina. Ransome v. Mimms, supra, at page 1113.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 448 F. Supp. 74 - Skipper v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

2. “[Fjirst, an ulterior purpose and second, a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct in the proceeding. Some definite act or threat not authorized by the process or aimed at an objective not legitimate in the use of the process, is required; and there is no liability where the defendant has done nothing more than carry out the process to its authorized conclusion, even though with bad intentions. The improper purpose takes the form of coercion to obtain a collateral advantage, not properly involved in the proceeding itself, such as the surrender of property or the payment of money, by the use of process as a threat or club. There is, in other words, a form of extortion, and it is what is done in the course of negotiation, rather than the issuance of any formal use of the process itself which constitutes the tort.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bostick Oil Co. v. Michelin Tire Corp.