Pfitzinger v. Dubs’s Empirical Analysis
64 F. 696 · 1894
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
May 1909
most recently cited
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on White v. Nicholls · Price v. Whitely · Cerveny v. Chicago Daily News Co. · Chaddock v. Briggs · Buckstaff v. Viall
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the first count, if the words, taken in their usual and ordinary sense, as they should be understood by persons reading them, tend to Injure or degrade the plaintiff morally or socially, then they are actionable per se. It is not essential that the words should impute dishonesty or immorality of any special kind or character. If they tend to degrade or dishonor him or injure his character, or hold him up to scorn, contempt, or ridicule, or render him of less esteem in the comnmnhy, morally or socially, then the words are actionable when printed. Of course, the rule is different in slander or mere spoken words, where it is necessary that some offense known to the law should be imputed.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Culmer v. Canby
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.