Woolfolk v. Tucker’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2001
10 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 Harvill v. TABOR · 390 So. 2d 287 - Jackson v. Griffin · State Life Ins. Co. of Ind. v. Hardy · State, Use and Benefit of Foster v. Turner · Brown v. Kisner
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“INSTRUCTION D-7 Before Matheney is entitled to recover any damages against the Warwicks, he must prove to you by a preponderance of the evidence that the Warwicks breached their contract with him. If Matheney proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Warwicks breached the contract with him, Matheney's damages, if any, shall be determined as follows: 1. The difference, if any, between the Fair Market Value of Matheney's stock in Matheney Ford, Inc., if the transaction with the Warwicks had been consummated and the Fair Market Value of such stock after the Warwicks terminated the contract. 2. From this sum, if any, you should deduct all benefits and sums received or recovered by Matheney when he sold his stock to George Cooper.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“INSTRUCTION P-33 Should your verdict be for the Plaintiff, you must consider the following factors in determining the amount of damages to be awarded as may be shown by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The value of Cecil Matheney's stock on July 17, 1985 had the Defendants purchased stock in Matheney Ford, Inc. pursuant to the contract on June 4, 1985. 2. Actual damages suffered by Cecil B. Matheney.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) [t]he institution or continuation of original judicial proceedings, either criminal or civil; (2) by, or at the instance of the defendants; (3) the termination of such proceeding in plaintiff's favor; (4) malice in instituting the proceedings; (5) want of probable cause for the proceedings; and (6) the suffering of damages as a result of the action or prosecution complained of.”
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.