Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 114 S.C. 171 - Hallman v. Lipscomb

Hallman v. Lipscomb’s Empirical Analysis

1920

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
May 1991
most recently cited

3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1991

3 state decisions

1019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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

  1. “The [broker] abandoned the position of agent for the [owner] ... and took the contract directly to himself. The positions of agent to sell and purchase are conflicting, and the [broker] could not occupy both positions. [Emphasis supplied].”
    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.