Shiner v. Moriarty’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably 2002 Pa. Super. 42 - Werner v. Plater-Zyberk (2002), General Refractories Co. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance (2003)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 44 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005)
Relies on BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore · Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission · Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Haslip · TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp. · International Paper Co. v. Ouellette
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To establish a claim for abuse of process it must be shown that the defendant (1) used a legal process against the plaintiff, (2) primarily to accomplish a purpose for which the process was not designed; and (3) harm has been caused to the plaintiff.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“Congress has expressed its intent that bankruptcy matters be handled in a federal forum by placing bankruptcy jurisdiction exclusively in the district courts as an initial matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (a). The mere fact that exclusive jurisdiction over a particular action is in the district courts would not necessarily mean that a later malicious prosecution action must be brought there. However, it does militate in that direction. . . . . [I]n a related vein, a mere browse through the complex, detailed, and comprehensive provisions of the lengthy Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., demonstrates Congress's intent to create a whole system under federal control which is designed to bring together and adjust all of the rights and duties of creditors and embarrassed debtors alike. While it is true that bankruptcy law makes reference to state law at many points, the adjustment of rights and duties within the bankruptcy process itself is uniquely and exclusively federal. It is very unlikely that Congress intended to permit the superimposition of state remedies on the many activities that might be undertaken in the management of the bankruptcy process. . . . . [Otherwise], the opportunities for asserting malicious prosecution claims would only be limited by the fertility of the pleader's mind and by the laws of the state in which the proceeding took place. In short, the highly complex laws needed to constitute the bankruptcy courts and regulate the rights of debtors and creditors”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“‘[n]either husband nor wife by virtue of the relation has power to act as agent for the other. The relation is of such a nature, however, that circumstances which in the ease of strangers would not indicate the creation of authority or apparent authority may indicate it in the case of husband or wife. Thus, a husband habitually permitted by his wife to attend to some of her business matters may be found to have authority to transact all of her business affairs.’”
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.