372 So. 2d 707 - Junot v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Baumgartner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. · Parker v. Interstate Life & Accident Insurance Co. · Holland v. Buckley · Eusant v. Unity Industrial Life Ins., Etc., Ass'n
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.
““(4) We recognize the fact that a suit for damages arising out of a ‘malicious prosecution’ is not limited to criminal prosecutions, but may also result from civil actions. * * * * * * * * The test applied to determine liability in such cases was stated by our Supreme Court in Eusant v. Unity Industrial Life Ins. and Sick Benefit Ass’n, 195 La. 347 , 196 So. 554, 556 (1940), and applied in later cases as follows: ‘ “An action for maliciously putting the law in motion lies in all cases where there is a concurrence of the following elements: (1) The commencement or continuance of an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding. (2) Its legal causation by the present defendant against plaintiff who was defendant in the original proceeding. (3) Its bona fide termination in favor of the present plaintiff. (4) The absence of probable cause for such proceeding. (5) The presence of malice therein. (6) Damage conforming to legal standards resulting to plaintiff. * * ” ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Grisaffi v. Roy
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.