King v. Root’s Empirical Analysis
1829
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently July 1964 · most notably White v. Nicholls (1845), State ex inf. Crow v. Shepherd (1903)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 44 state decisions — followed in 17 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.
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Malice means a want of legal excuse. This is the sense in which the form is most frequently employed,’and it is probably the only sense in which it is properly employed. Substitute ‘absence of legal excuse’ for ‘malice’ in many opinions in the reports which are difficult to he understood, and they will become easily intelligible. * * * Malice, in law, does not mean malice or ill will towards the individual affected by libel or slander. In the ordinary sense of the term, ‘malice’ in law, or absence of legal excuse, is an implication of law from the false and injurious nature of the charge, and differs from actual malice and ill will towards the individual, frequently given in evidence to enhance the damages.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Maples
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.