Speer v. Cimosz’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently December 2012
2 federal appellate · 12 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 United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co. · M & M Rental Tools, Inc. v. Milchem, Inc. · Wolf v. Perry · Durrett v. Petritsis · Anderson v. Dairyland Insurance
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a good faith assertion or threat by the one interfering to protect a legally-protected interest of his [or her] own which he [or she] believes might otherwise be impaired or destroyed by performance of the contract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Waldroup v. Lindman“the evidence [at trial] sustained the claim of interference and the jury was not erroneously instructed thereon.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Waldroup v. Lindman“'in the event suit is filed against you, the company will provide a complete defense of any action....'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Waldroup v. Lindman
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.