CRY v. Cote’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably 99 Ill. App. 3d 493 - Nemeth v. Banhalmi (1981), Adams v. Buffalo Forge Co. (1982)
4 federal appellate · 34 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 Latham v. Father Divine · Hyde Properties v. McCoy · Patterson v. Rossignol · Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. Environmental Improvement Commission · Perkins v. Pendleton
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In recognizing this tort, we emphasize that it is one for the wrongful interference with an intended bequest and not an independent action for undue influence or duress. Rather, undue influence and duress, traditionally considered wrongful under well-established precedent ... are simply the means by which the alleged interference occurred.” (Citing authorities.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“cases where it has heretofore been otherwise practiced,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In both Perkins and the instant case, the injured parties had only an expectation of future gain. In both, the third parties, i. e., the company and the testator, were under no legal obligation to the plaintiffs. Both suits in substance alleged that but for the tortious conduct of the defendants, the plaintiffs would have reaped economic benefits. In short, in all material respects, the instant case falls well within the controlling principles of Perkins v. Pendleton. Nor can we perceive any countervailing policy reason not to extend Perkins v. Pendleton, which recognized an action for the wrongful interference with the expectation of a future business relationship, into the area of decedents’ estates. Id. at 1018.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harmon v. Harmon
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.