Hamilton v. Love’s Empirical Analysis
1899
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently March 1992 · most notably Seymour v. Oelrichs (1909), Maynard v. Royal Worcester Corset Co. (1908)
6 federal appellate · 59 state decisions — followed in 16 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 Wakeman v. Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. · Howard v. . Daly · Schell v. . Plumb · Olmstead v. Bach · Hinchcliffe v. Koontz
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f appellants had rules or regulations for conducting their business, and which the servant was required to observe, it was their duty to make them known to him. If the servant had no notice of such rules and regulations, he could not be expected to conform his conduct to them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The remedy of a servant discharged without sufficient cause, before the expiration of the period of service stipulated for, is not in assumpsit as for implied services, or for wages, but is for damages for the breach of the contract.””
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.