Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 15 Ala. App. 463 - Hampton v. Tant

15 Ala. App. 463 - Hampton v. Tant’s Empirical Analysis

1917

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
June 1968
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Tinney v. Central of Georgia Railway 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Neither the record proper nor the bill of exception shows any order of the court on the motion for new trial. There is a notation on the motion for new trial as follows : ‘September 4, 1915. Motion overruled. Plaintiff excepts.’ But this does not purport to be an order of the court, and, for all that appears, may have been a mere notation by the clerk of the court, or perhaps a bench note by the presiding judge, but does not rise to the dignity of an order of the court, and will not authorize a review. * * *»”
    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.