Harmon v. Harmon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 30 state decisions

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

1. ““We conclude that where a person can prove that, but for the tortious interference of another, he would in all likelihood have received a gift or a specific profit from a transaction, he is entitled to recover the damages thereby done to him. [Citation omitted.] We apply this rule to the case before us where allegedly the Defendant son and his wife have tortiously interfered with the Plaintiff son’s expectation that under his mother’s will he would receive a substantial portion of her estate.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 252 N.C. App. 10 - Hauser v. Hauser · Chambers v. Kane

2. “somewhere near the frontier of the expanding field of law relating to tortious interference with an advantageous relationship... .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 719 So. 2d 2 - Whalen v. Prosser · 575 So. 2d 239 - Carlton v. Carlton

3. ““If the law protects a person from interference with an opportunity to receive a benefit by entering into contractual relations in the future, the same protection should be accorded to a person’s opportunity to receive a benefit as a prospective legatee. The uncertainty attendant upon the expectancy is equivalent. Neither the employee nor the prospective legatee has any enforceable right to his likely benefit.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chambers v. Kane