Oaksmith v. Brusich’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 44 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]s [there] sufficient evidence that: 1) a prospective business relationship existed ... 2) [the defendant] knew of the prospective relationship and intended to prevent its fruition, 3) the prospective business relationship did not culminate in pecuniary benefit to [the plaintiff], 4) [the defendant’s] conduct interfered with the prospective relationship, 5) the interference caused [the plaintiffs] damages, and 6) [the defendant’s] conduct was not privileged or justified.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Odom v. Fairbanks Memorial Hospital · Sisters of Providence v. A.A. Pain Clinic, Inc.

2. “Under theories of continuing trespass or nuisance, each harmful act constitutes a new cause of action for statute of limitations purposes and, therefore, the accrual of a cause of action is not measured from the date of the initial trespass so as to bar the entire action. However, while later continuing acts may prevent the running of the statute of limitations on the claim, damages cannot be recovered for the initial time-barred acts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Krause v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough

3. “[PJroof that (1) a contract existed, (2) the defendant ... knew of the contract and intended to induce a breach, (3) the contract was breached, (4) defendant’s wrongful conduct engendered the breach, (5) the breach caused the plaintiffs damages, and (6) the defendant’s conduct was not privileged or justified.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ran Corp. v. Hudesman