Taylor v. Hearst’s Empirical Analysis
1895
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2006 · most notably Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc. (1971), Davis v. Hearst (1911)
8 federal appellate · 22 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 Wilson v. Fitch · Childers v. San Jose Mercury Printing & Publishing Co. · Lick v. Owen · Mowry v. Raabe
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“actual damages embraces recovery for loss of reputation, shame, mortification, injury to feelings, etc.; and while special damages must be alleged and proven, general damages for outrage to feelings and loss of reputation need not be alleged in detail”); Taylor v. Dominick, 36 S.C. 368 , 15 S.E. 591 , 593-94 (1892) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.