Hartmann v. Time, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

82 federal appellate · 16 district · 26 state decisions

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 186 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We are not willing to dispose of the motion on such a narrow ground. We cannot believe, in view of the great number of magazines which comprised the issue, that ‘Life’ dated January 17 was not read by persons not privileged within the two or three days which followed its very widespread distribution. To hold otherwise would be totally unrealistic and would inflict a wooden and a senseless interpretation on Rule 56.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Michael J. Morrissey v. William Morrow & Co., Inc., Bantam Books · 212 F. Supp. 832 - Brown v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co.

2. ““The rule is settled, in Federal and Pennsylvania courts, not inconsistent with Rule 15(c), that an amendment stating a new cause of action on which the statute of limitations has run may not be permitted. * * * The relation back provided for in Rule 15(c) applies, as it is clearly stated therein, only when the asserted claim or defense arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading. The proposed amendment, however, does not set up a new claim on the same conduct or occurrence as that alleged in the original complaint, the publication of the issue of “Life” dated January 17, 1944, nor is it a new statement or clarification of the matter therein alleged; rather it seeks recovery upon a new and distinct occurrence, upon a new and separate printing, circulation and publication of alleged libelous matter on February 7, 1944, and this constitutes a new cause of action.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 114 F. Supp. 604 - Heuer v. Basin Park Hotel and Resort

3. ““* * * the rule of res judicata is that when a court of competent jurisdiction has determined a litigated cause on its merits, the judgment entered, until reversed, is, forever and under all circumstances, final and conclusive as between the parties to the suit and their privies, in respect to every fact which might properly be considered in reaching a judicial determination of the controversy, and in respect to all points of law there adjudged, as those points relate directly to the cause of action in litigation and affect the fund or other subject-matter then before the court. * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Denckla v. Maes