Bothmann v. Harrington’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably American Home Assurance Company v. United Space Alliance Llc (2004), Dykes v. Aj Hosemann a W (1985)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions
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 333 So. 2d 457 - Alsdorf v. Broward County · Earp v. Nobmann · 402 So. 2d 425 - Procacci v. Zacco · 285 So. 2d 29 - Glusman v. Lieberman · 177 So. 2d 486 - Gates v. Utsey
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a disparagement action the plaintiff must allege and prove the following elements: (1) A falsehood (2) has been published, or communicated to a third person (3) when the defendant-publisher knows or reasonably should know that it will likely result in inducing others not to deal with the plaintiff and (4) in fact, the falsehood does play a material and substantial part in inducing others not to deal with the plaintiff; and (5) special damages are proximately caused as a result of the published falsehood.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] distinction must be drawn between an improper filing in a procedural sense, and a wrongful filing in a substantive sense. Only the latter will support an action for disparagement of property because only it meets the requisite falsehood element of the action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Some definite act or threat not authorized by the process, or aimed at an objective not legitimate in the use of the process, is required; and there is no liability where the defendant has done nothing more than carry out the process to its authorized conclusion, even though with bad intentions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.