Hardt v. Heidweyer’s Empirical Analysis
152 U.S. 547 · 1894
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 14 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2004 · most notably Hays v. Port of Seattle (1920), Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Shannon (1912)
36 federal appellate · 14 district · 37 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 Swift v. Tyson · Wood v. Carpenter · Burgess v. Seligman · Hiram Barber v. Huldah a Barber by Her Next Friend George Cronkhite · Luther v. Borden
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A general allegation of ignorance at one time and of knowledge at another are of no effect. If the plaintiff made any particular discovery, it should be stated when it was made, what it was, how it was made, and why it was not made sooner. * * * The fraud intended by the section which shall arrest the running of the statute must be one that is secret and concealed, and not one that is patent or known. * * * ‘Whatever is notice enough to excite attention and put the party on bis guard and call for inquiry, is notice of every thing to which such inquiry might have led. When a person has sufficient information to lead him to a fact, he shall be deemed conversant of it. * * * The presumption is that if the party affected by any fraudulent transaction or management might, with ordinary care and attention, have seasonably detected it, he seasonably had actual knowledge of it.’ * ~ * A party seeking to avoid the bar of the statute on account of fraud must aver and show that he used due diligence to detect it, and if he had the means of discovery in his power, he will be held to have known it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martin v. Brown““Tested by this rule, it is apparent that this bill must be held deficient in not showing how knowledge of the wrongs complained of was obtained by the plaintiffs. It is alleged that they were ignorant, and now have knowledge; and that they acquired such knowledge within a month prior to bringing the suit; but how they acquired it, and why they did not have the same means of ascertaining the facts before, is not disclosed.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martin v. Brown“Post hoc, propter hoc, is not, however, sufficient, and the rule of causation implies some other sequence than that of time.”
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.