Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 894 F.2d 598 - Silver v. Mendel

Silver v. Mendel’s Empirical Analysis

894 F.2d 598 · 1990

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1992), Westinghouse Securities Litigation Md (1996)

22 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

480199020002010decided

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 Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. · Thompson Coal Co. v. Pike Coal Co. · Kazatsky v. King David Memorial Park, Inc. · Chuy 77-1412 v. Philadelphia Eagles Football Club 77-1411 · Adler, Barish, Daniels, Levin & Creskoff v. Epstein

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

  1. “`rules of the game' which society has adopted [defining] socially acceptable conduct which the law regards was privileged.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a] person who takes part in the procurement, initiation or continuation of civil proceedings against another is subject to liability to the other for wrongful use of civil proceedings, ... [if h]e acts in a grossly negligent manner or without probable cause and primarily for a purpose other than that of securing the proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of the claim in which the proceedings are based ...”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “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. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 766 (1979); see Silver v. Mendel, 894 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 2620 , 110 L.Ed.2d 641 (1990); Adler, Barish, Daniels, Levin and Creskoff v. Epstein, 482 Pa. 416 , 393 A.2d 1175, 1183 (1978), appeal dismissed, 442 U.S. 907 , 99 S.Ct. 2817 , 61 L.Ed.2d 272 (1979). 65”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.