Skinner v. Etheridge’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

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

1. “'For the trial court to have erred in granting summary judgment for [the defendant] on the malicious prosecution count, there must have been some direct or circumstantial evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer each of the following elements, which [compose] a cause of action for malicious prosecution: (1) that a judicial proceeding was initiated by [the defendant] against [the plaintiff], (2) that the judicial proceeding was instituted without probable cause, (3) that the [proceeding was] instituted by [the defendant] maliciously, (4) that the judicial proceeding had been *Page 1169 terminated in favor of [the plaintiff], and (5) that [the plaintiff] suffered damage as a proximate cause of the judicial proceeding.' " Skinner v. Etheridge , 564 So.2d 902 , 903 (Ala. 1990) (quoting Smith v. Wendy's of the South, Inc. , 503 So.2d 843 , 844 (Ala. 1987)). We need not discuss here each element of a malicious prosecution cause of action, because no reading of the evidence before the trial court yields any inference to support the element of "malice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 612 So. 2d 1167 - Walker v. Windom

2. “Malicious prosecution actions are not favored.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Franklin v. City of Huntsville