Brishky v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2013
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 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 Friedman v. Dozorc · Ward v. Caulk · Nienstedt v. Wetzel · 111 Wis. 2d 418 - Strid v. Converse · Alberts v. Giebink
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The definition of abuse of process can be found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 682 (1977): One who uses a legal process whether criminal or civil, against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed, is subject to liability to the other for harm caused by the abuse of process. We have previously adopted 682 of the first edition of the Restatement of Torts. Layton v. Chase, 82 S.D. 270 , 144 N.W.2d 561 (1966). Now, we adopt section 682, and comments a and b of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. The Restatement (Second) of Torts section 682 is identical to the Restatement of Torts section 682 in all respects except for the addition of the word "primarily” in the second edition. This revision narrows the claim of abuse of process as explained in new comment b: b. "Primarily." The significance of this word is that there is no action for abuse of process when the process is used for the purpose for which it is intended, but there is an incidental motive of spite or an ulterior purpose of benefit to the defendant ... For abuse of process to occur there must be use of the process for an immediate purpose other than that for which it was designed and intended. The usual case of abuse of process is one of some form of extortion, using the process to put pressure upon the other to compel him to pay a different debt or to take some action or refrain from it. An additional commentary in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 682 app., attempted to c”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[generally, when a tort involves continuing injury, the cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations commences when the wrong terminates, [citation omitted.] Although this Court has never, in depth, explained the nature of a continuing wrong, other jurisdictions have. A continuing violation is occasioned by continual unlawful acts, not by continual ill effects from an original action. [citation omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Abuse of process consists of the malicious misuse or misapplication of legal process after its issuance to accomplish some collateral purpose not warranted or properly attainable thereby. It differs from malicious prosecution in that it is not necessary to show that the action in which the process was used was without probable cause or that it terminated favorably to the plaintiff.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.