Hanner v. Moulton’s Empirical Analysis
138 U.S. 486 · 1891
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 7 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1979 · most notably Hammond v. Hopkins (1892), Patterson v. Hewitt (1904)
21 federal appellate · 7 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Speidel v. Henrici · Richards v. Mackall · Hanner v. Moulton
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An interval of nearly thirteen years elapsed between the sale of the certificate and the filing of the bill in this suit. The value of the property has largely increased. Parties interested and witnesses have died, and the memory of those who survive has decayed. Not a person who is now interested m any of the land is implicated in the fraud charged in the bill. Under the facts above stated, the plaintiffs have been guilty of such laches that they cannot have any relief in a court of equity. Speidel v. Henrici, 120 U. S. 377 , 387, and cases there cited; Richards v. Mackall, 124 U. S. 183 , 187, 188.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Underwood v. Dugan
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.