Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 564 F.2d 263 - Marion Edward Williams v. Paul H. Crews

Marion Edward Williams v. Paul H. Crews’s Empirical Analysis

564 F.2d 263 · 1977

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
August 2006
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 2006

3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

301977198019902000decided

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 Mullaney v. Wilbur · McGautha v. California · James Edward Crampton v. Ohio · Giltner v. Stark · Sarvold v. Dodson

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

  1. “Actual malice is synonymous with express malice, which has been defined as “malice in fact, ill-will, or wrongful motive ...” Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 1968, p. 1109. See Giltner v. Stark, 219 N.W.2d 700, 708 (Iowa 1974). The element of actual malice essential to an action for malicious prosecution involving a defendant who is a public official cannot simply be inferred from a lack of probable cause, but must be the subject of an affirmative showing defendant’s instigation of criminal proceedings against plaintiff was primarily inspired by ill-will, hatred or other wrongful motives. If the defendant’s purpose in instigating proceedings was otherwise proper, the fact he felt indignation or resentment toward the plaintiff will not subject him to liability. See Prosser on Torts, 4th Ed., § 119, pp. 847-848.”
    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.