Hicks v. Michael’s Empirical Analysis
1860
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2011 · most notably Trede v. Superior Court (1943), Kress v. Corey (1948)
2 federal appellate · 41 state decisions — followed in 11 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 Merced Mining Co. v. Fremont · People ex rel. Mulford v. Turner · Campbell v. Stakes · Kane · Ex parte Mansony
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Upon the complaint in this cause, application was made for an injunction. The county judge, to whom the application was made, issued an order upon the defendants, returnable on the twenty-ninth of October, to show cause why an injunction should not issue as prayed for, and restraining* them from the commission of the acts which are the subject of complaint, ‘until the hearing of the whole matter. ’ The hearing upon the order was continued until the eighth of December, when, by consent of the parties, it was brought on before the district judge, who, after argument, refused the injunction, and dissolved the restraining order. The plaintiff soon after applied to the judge to fix the amount of a suspensive appeal bond, stating that it was his intention to appeal from the order, and that he had taken the necessary steps for that purpose. The judge refused the application, so far as to fix the amount of a bond with a view to its operation to revive the restraining order, or as an injunction pending the appeal. Hence the motion for the mandamus. “The restraining order 'expired by its own limitation. It was issued under the provisions of the one hundred and sixteenth section of the Practice Act, and was intended only as a restraint upon the defendants, until the propriety of granting the provisional remedy of a temporary injunction could be determined, after hearing the parties. The concluding words of the order do not operate to change it into an injunction pending the suit. They ”
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.