Patterson v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis
1916
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 1969
15 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 Oscanyan v. Arms Co. · Hoffman v. Dickinson · First State Bank of Keota v. Bridges · Central Branch Union Pacific Railroad v. Shoup · Lindley v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad
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.
““That one of the essential elements entering into and necessary to be shown in a suit for damages arising out of an alleged malicious prosecution is that such prosecution has been legally terminated in plaintiff’s favor, will not be denied. Schrieber v. Clapp, 13 Okla. 215 , 74 Pac. 316 ; Sawyer v. Shick, 30 Okla. 353 , 120 Pac. 581 ; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Holliday, 30 Okla. 680 , 120 Pac. 927 , 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 205; Flamm v. Wineland, 41 Okla. 688 , 139 Pac. 961 ; Allison v. Bryan, 50 Okla. 677 , 151 Pac. 610 .””
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.