Miller v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 2013
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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 25 F. Supp. 993 - Means v. MacFadden Publications, Inc. · Gasifier Mfg. Co. v. Ford Motor Co. · Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co. · 30 F. Supp. 789 - Munzer v. Swedish American Line · 29 F. Supp. 822 - McGrath v. Helena Rubinstein, Inc.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The principle seems to be that if, under the facts developed, the court at a trial would be required to direct a verdict for the moving party, then a summary judgment should be entered.’ Miller v. Hoffman, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 290 , 292.” [ 85 U.S.App.D.C. 15 , 174 F.2d 536 .]”
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.