Cates v. Eddy’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Leithead v. American Colloid Co. (1986), Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Donahue (1983)
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 34 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 Ungar v. Sarafite · Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Morris · Christine M. Grunewald, Individually and as of the Will of Henry W. Grunewald, Deceased v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, a Missouri Corporation · Rissler & McMurry Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co. · 58 Cal. App. 3d 478 - Weisenburg v. Molina
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"On the one hand, it is stated that malicious prosecution actions are not favored in the law because of a public policy in favor of uncovering and prosecuting crime. Large tort judgments against well-meaning individuals, acting honestly and in good faith, might seriously inhibit those attempting to perform what they believe a civic duty. A policy that discourages citizens from reporting crime or aiding in prosecution would be undesirable and detrimental to society in general. "On the other hand, it is generally accepted that for every wrong there should be a right. That also is necessary to an orderly society, for the alternative is that the party wronged seek his own redress. Experience has shown that remedy to be unacceptable. Thus, one who is subjected to unjustifiable criminal or civil proceedings because of spite or malice, which result in damage and injury, should recover compensation for that loss. "The competing policy considerations are nicely balanced; and requiring malice and lack of probable cause as necessary elements to an action for malicious prosecution affords adequate protection to the first policy and restriction upon the second. Allowing a malicious prosecution action where the proceeding was `initiated, caused or procured' by the defendant is fair. It will not be destructive of either of the stated policies."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The institution [or continuation] of a criminal proceeding; (2) by, or at the insistence of, the defendant; (3) the termination of such proceedings in plaintiff's favor; (4) malice in instituting the proceedings; (5) want of probable cause for the proceeding; (6) the suffering of injury or damage as a result of the prosecution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the verdict is so large or small that it shocks the judicial conscience, the court has not only the right, but the duty, to grant remittitur or additur accordingly.”
2 later decisions 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.