Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 708 NW2D 552 - Dunham v. Roer

Dunham v. Roer’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
4
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

3 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 2022

3 district · 15 state decisions

100200620102020decided

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 Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · United States v. O'Brien · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Kolender v. Lawson

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

  1. “The essential elements of an action for abuse of process are only two, namely, (a) the existence of an ulterior purpose, and (b) the act of using the process to accomplish a result not within the scope of the proceeding in which it was issued, whether such result might otherwise be lawfully obtained or not. The gist of the action is the misuse or misapplication of the process, after it has once been issued, for an end other than that which it was designed to accomplish.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “To run afoul of the statute, a telephone call must be made not merely to communicate, but with intent to harass, annoy or alarm and in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm. Whether speech actually occurs is irrelevant, since the statute proscribes conduct, whether or not a conversation actually ensues.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the constitutionality of a statute based on the harm to the litigating party.”
    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.