Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 ARK 52 - Hogan v. Intertype Corp.

Hogan v. Intertype Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1918

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
4
states following
January 1987
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently January 1987 · most notably Leasing Associates, Inc. v. Slaughter & Son, Inc. (1971), Lewis v. Club Realty Co. (1928)

7 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

13019181920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Kansas ex rel. Coleman · Browning v. City of Waycross · Ludwig v. Western Union Telegraph Co. · City of San Antonio v. Hamilton · American Amusement Co v. East Lake Chutes Co.

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

  1. ““ ‘It was necessarily the intention of the Legislature to render any paper growing out of a transaction of this character defective so that it could not fall into the hands of an innocent purchaser and be enforced in this State. . . . [T]he notes evidenced a contract made by the corporation in violation of the statute laws of this State. The defect was inherent in the notes . . ., and therefore a subsequent purchaser must take notice of the defect.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “cannot make any contract in the State which can be enforced * * *”
    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.