Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 72 Wis. 2d 356 - Thompson v. Beecham

72 Wis. 2d 356 - Thompson v. Beecham’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably 111 Wis. 2d 418 - Strid v. Converse (1983), 99 Wis. 2d 789 - Sommer v. Carr (1981)

1 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

140197619801990200020102020decided

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 Barnette v. Woody · 50 Wis. 2d 287 - Maniaci v. Marquette University · Pimentel v. Houk · Moffett v. Commerce Trust Company · Elmer v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.

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.

  1. “wilful act in the use of process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. David P. Sweeney v. James M. Flanagan · Wisconsin Public Service Corp. v. Andrews
  2. “[T]he process must be used for something more than a proper use with a bad motive. The plaintiff must allege and prove that something was done under the process which was not warranted by its terms. The existence of an improper purpose alone is not enough, for this improper purpose must also culminate in an actual misuse of the process to obtain some ulterior advantage.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. 111 Wis. 2d 418 - Strid v. Converse · 185 Wis. 2d 220 - Stern v. Thompson & Coates, Ltd.
  3. “[o]ne who uses a legal process, whether criminal or civil, against another to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. 102 Wis. 2d 108 - Brownsell v. Klawitter · 2003 WI App 194 - Kustelski v. Taylor

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.