Willey v. Riley’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2013
8 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 Harsha v. State Savings Bank · Smith v. Smithway Motor Xpress, Inc. · Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Voeltz · Nesler v. Fisher and Co., Inc. · Johnson v. Dodgen
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Interference with a prospective contract is an intentional tort which requires a showing that the sole or predominant purpose of the actor’s conduct was to financially injure or destroy the plaintiff. The tort requires plaintiff to prove the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The plaintiff had a prospective contractual relationship with a third person. 2. The defendant knew of the prospective relationship. 3. The defendant intentionally and improperly interfered with the relationship in one or more particulars. 4. The interference caused either the third party not to enter into or to continue the relationship or that the interference prevented the plaintiff from entering into or continuing the relationship. 5. The amount of damage. Nesler [v. Fisher & Co., 452 N.W.2d 191 ,] 198-99 [ (Iowa 1990) ]. If a defendant acts for two or more purposes, his improper purpose must predominate in order to create liability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If a defendant acts for two or more purposes, his improper purpose must predominate in order to create liability. Harsha [v. State Sav. Bank ], 346 N.W.2d [791,] 799 [ (Iowa 1984) ]. The substantial evidence rule in Iowa requires that the circumstances have “ ‘sufficient probative force to constitute the basis for a legal inference, and not for mere speculation.’ ” Id. at 800 (quoting 32A C.J.S. Evidence § 1039, at 753-54 (1964)). “Circumstances are not sufficient when the conclusion in question is based on surmise, speculation or conjecture.” Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mills v. Iowa“Our only inquiry ... is whether there is sufficient evidence to justify submitting the case to the jury. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be denied if there is substantial evidence to support each element of the plaintiffs • claims. A plaintiff must have presented more than a mere scintilla of evidence to avoid a defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Evidence is substantial when a reasonable mind would find the evidence presented adequate to reach the same findings.”
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.