Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 191 SO 759 - Hall v. Mengel Co.

Hall v. Mengel Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 2016

6 state decisions

40193919401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Leday v. Lake Charles Pipe & Supply Co. · Crawford v. Tampa Inter-Ocean S. S. Co. · Cutitto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. · Murphy v. B. Mutti, Inc. · 4 La. App. 157 - Martin v. Wyatt Lumber Co.

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

  1. “"* * * first, the operation is not a minor or simple one, but is classed as a major one; second, the danger to life— one chance out of a hundred of losing his life—is too great, and the probability of a recurrence—from five to ten per cent—renders the result too uncertain; and, third, there would be considerable pain and discomfort, with a long period of confinement and convalescence."”
    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.