Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 409 F.3d 853 - Cody v. Harris

Cody v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

409 F.3d 853 · 2005

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
states following
January 2023
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Delta Consulting Group, Inc. v. R. Randle Construction, Inc. (2009), Gonzalez v. Feinerman (2011)

8 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

200200520102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Conley v. Gibson · General Electric Co. v. Joiner · 131 Ill. 2d 145 - HPI Health Care Services, Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hospital, Inc. · 174 Ill. 2d 77 - Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc.

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

  1. “Some statements are considered defamatory per se because they are so obviously and materially harmful to a plaintiff that his injury may be presumed and he does not need to prove actual damages to recover. There are five such categories of statements in Illinois: (1) those imputing the commission of a criminal offense; (2) those imputing infection with a loathsome communicable disease; (3) those imputing an inability to perform or want of integrity in the discharge of duties of office or employment; (4) those imputing a lack of ability, or that prejudice a party in his trade, profession, or business; and (5) those imputing adultery or fornication.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A defendant's inducement of the cancellation of an at-will contract constitutes at most interference with a prospective economic advantage, not interference with contractual relations.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Under Illinois law, a statement is defamatory if it harms the reputation of another, lowering him in the eyes of the community, or if it discourages others from associating with him.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.