Hart v. Wagner’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
2 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently October 2008 · most notably Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Washington National Arena (1978), Green v. Garrett (1949)
2 district · 36 state decisions
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 Smith v. Shiebeck · Adams v. Michael · Hendrickson v. Standard Oil Co. · Townsend, Grace & Co. v. Epstein · Woodyear v. Schaefer
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The term ‘irreparable injury’ as used in the law of injunction does not necessarily mean that the injury complained of is beyond the possibility of compensation, and damages, or that the injury must be very great. But while the complainants would be entitled to recover damages at law, they could not recover for the entire past and prospective injury in one suit but only for the damages prior to the suit. These damages would be difficult to estimate, and in some cases might be comparatively trivial. Therefore, in seeking redress at law, they would be driven to a multiplicity of vexatious and unprofitable suits.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘General certainty’ in equity pleadings is all that is necessary. Story’s Eq. Pl., Sec. 252, 3; Mewshaw v. Mewshaw, 2 Md. Ch. 12 . In this connection it is also pointed out in the last cited authority that while there may be cases in which it is quite proper for parties to resort to demurrer, ‘this mode of defense is viewed with suspicion and disfavor, as indicative of an unwillingness to meet the plaintiff’s case. . . .’”Id. at44.”
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.