Kennedy v. Hazelton’s Empirical Analysis
128 U.S. 667 · 1888
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 34 district · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 197 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2006 · most notably Heckman v. United States (1912), Steward v. American Lava Co. (1909)
54 federal appellate · 34 district · 55 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Mahn v. Harwood · Pulllman's Palace Car Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. · Milkman v. Ordway · Ambler v. Whipple
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 197 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A court of chancery cannot decree specific performance of an agreement to convey property which has no existence, or to which Hie defendant has no title. A bill by vendee against vendor for specific performance, which does not show any title in the defendant, is bad on demurrer. And if it appears, by tbe bill or otherwise, that the want of title (even if caused by the defendant’s own act, as by his conveyance to a bona fide purchaser) was known to the plaintiff at the time of beginning the suit, the bill will not be retained for assessment of damages, but must be dismissed, and the plaintiff left to his remedy at law. Columbine v. Chichester, 2 Phillips, 27 ; s. c., 1 Coop temp. Cottenham, 295; Ferguson v. Wilson, L. R. 2 Ch. 77; Kempshall v. Stone, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 193 ; Morss v. Elmendorf, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 277; Milkman v. Ordway, 106 Mass. 232 , 256.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The defendant agreed in writing to assign to the plaintiff any patents that he might obtain for improvements in steam boilers. He did invent such an Improvement, and, with intent to evade his agreement and to defraud the plaintiff, procured a patent for this invention to be obtained upon the application under oath of a third person as the inventor, and to be issued to him as the assignee of that person, and has made profits by manufacturing and selling boilers embodying the improvement so patented. The plaintiff seeks by bill in equity to compel the defendant to assign the patent to him, and to account for the profits received under it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Murjahn v. Hall
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.