Davenport v. Epperly’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
1 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably Holloway v. Skinner (1995), 201 W. Va. 325 - Hosaflook v. Consolidation Coal Co. (1997)
1 district · 35 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 Cordova v. Gosar · ABC Builders, Inc. v. Phillips · England v. Simmons · Phillips v. Montana Education Ass'n · BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. v. Holso
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One who intentionally and improperly interferes with the performance of a contract (except a contract to marry) between another and a third person by inducing or otherwise causing the third person not to perform the contract, is subject to liability to the other for the pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the failure of the third person to perform the contract.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘1. Legal sufficiency of the complaint. “ ‘2. Procedural sufficiency of the motion for summary judgment and attached affidavits and deposition material. “ ‘3. Substantive sufficiency of the affidavits to initially support the motion. “ ‘4. Procedural sufficiency of responsive affidavits. “ ‘5. Substantive legal issue disposition. “ ‘6. Substantive sufficiency of responsive affidavits.’ ” Quoting from Cordo-va v. Gosar, supra, 719 P.2d at 634 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Wyoming, the following elements must be demonstrated to sustain a cause of action for tortious interference with a contract or prospective economic advantage: (1) The existence of a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy; (2) knowledge of the relationship or expectancy on the part of the interferer; (8) intentional and improper interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and (4) resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gore v. Sherard
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.