Hiatt v. Auld’s Empirical Analysis
1873
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 1934
1 federal appellate · 8 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.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The first was a sufficient cause of action; the facts necessary to support it are alleged, and Hiatt claims to recover because of the existence of those facts. The second claims to recover the same amount of money, but on the ground of the existence of a wholly different state of facts. The first action was on a contract of a special character between Auld and Taylor; the second on a contract between Auld and Taylor on the one part and Hiatt on the other. The one is not only unlike the other, but inconsistent with it. The first alleges that Taylor bought the cattle and gave the note, Auld becoming subsequently liable. The second makes- Auld liable as secret partner from the beginning. The first was a perfect complaint for one cause of action. The second was a cause of action not even suggested by the first.” (p. 182.)”
1 later decision 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.