Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 323 Ark. 43 - Cherepski v. Walker

Cherepski v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
5
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Pugh v. Griggs (1997), Milam v. Bank of Cabot (1997)

2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

2301996200020102020decided

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 Creditors of Micro-Time Management Systems, Inc. v. Allard & Fish, P.C. · Strock v. Pressnell · Destefano v. Grabrian · Keck v. American Employment Agency, Inc. · Schieffer v. Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha

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

  1. “While Cherepski couches his amended complaint in terms of intentional infliction of emotional distress, it is clear that his complaint is in essence an action for alienation of affection.... The real character of Cherepski’s claim is of an amatory tort. His attempt to label his claim otherwise does not remove it from its true characterization as a claim for alienation of affection, which the legislature has chosen to abolish as a cause of action.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) the defendant intended to inflict emotional distress or knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) the conduct was extreme and outrageous and was utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the defendant’s conduct was the cause of the plaintiff’s distress; and (4) the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.”
    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.