Emory v. Eggan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

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

1. ““Numerous errors are assigned, three of which are deemed of sufficient importance to require comment. Plaintiff introduced the depositions of numerous witnesses from Garden City to prove that when he lived there his reputation for honesty and fair dealing was good. The contention of defendant is that in an action for malicious prosecution such evidence is incompetent for the purpose of proving want of probable cause unless it be shown that such reputation was known to, or should have been known by, the plaintiff in the action claimed to have been brought maliciously. There was no evidence showing or tending to show that Doctor Emory knew or might have been acquainted with Eggan’s previous reputation when he brought the action. The authorities sustain this contention. (Newell, Mal. Pros. 466.) “In McIntire v. Levering, 148 Mass. 546 , 20 N. E. 191 , 2 L.R.A. 517 , 12 Am. St. Rep. 594 , it was said: ‘To prove that the attack was originally made without probable cause, we think he should be permitted to show his good reputation known to the defendant when the prosecution was commenced.’ (Page 549.) This view of the law is also sustained by the following cases: Woodworth v. Mills, 61 Wis. 44 , 20 N. W. 728 , 50 Am. Rep. 135 ; Israel v. Brooks, 23 Ill. 575 ; Miller v. Brown, 3 Mo. 127 , 23 Am. Dec. 693 ; Blizzard v. Hays, 46 Ind. 166 , 15 Am. Rep. 291 ; Bank of Miller v. Richmon, 64 Neb. 111 , 89 N. W. 627 .” (See, also, 38 C. J. 482.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Divers v. Le May