Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 561 SO2D 1072 - Stacks v. Pate

Stacks v. Pate’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
December 1992
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Boothby Realty Co. v. Haygood · 447 So. 2d 133 - Nat. SEC. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Bowen · Birwood Paper Company v. Damsky · 388 So. 2d 529 - Whatley v. Cardinal Pest Control · Hanson v. Couch

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ ‘To successfully maintain an action for malicious prosecution in Alabama, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that a prior judicial proceeding was instigated by the defendant without probable cause and with malice, such proceeding ending in favor of the plaintiff, but nevertheless causing the plaintiff damages. Brown v. Parnell, 386 So.2d 1137 (Ala.1890); Birwood Paper Co. v. Damsky, 285 Ala. 127 , 229 So.2d 514 (1969). All of these elements being essential, the plaintiff must prove them in order to prevail because an action for malicious prosecution is not favored at law. This Court stated its reasoning for such a rule in Birwood Paper Co., supra, citing Boothby Realty Co. v. Haygood, 269 Ala. 549 , 114 So.2d 555 (1969): “1 “[A]nyone who has reasonable cause to believe that there is reasonable cause for legal redress and protection has a lawful right to seek such redress without risk of being sued and having to respond in damages for seeking unsuccessfully to enforce his rights.’ ” “Alabama Power Co. v. Neighbors, 402 So.2d 958, 962 (Ala.1981). (Emphasis added.) “One of the necessary elements to be proven by a plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action is that the defendant instigated the prior judicial proceeding against him ‘without probable cause.’ In Lumpkin v. Cofield, 536 So.2d 62, 64 (Ala.1988), this Court stated that a ‘grand jury indictment [of a defendant in a prior judicial proceeding] is prima facie evidence of [the existence] of probable cause.’ As furthe”
    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.