Hiatt v. Ellis’s Empirical Analysis
192 F.2d 119 · 1951
Citation profile
17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
June 1967
most recently cited
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Hode v. Sanford · Bledsoe v. Johnston · United States ex rel. Chasteen v. Denemark · United States ex rel. Durkin v. McDonnell
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The word ‘consecutive’ used in the -sentence, according to its primary dictionary definition, denotes ‘following in a train, succeeding one another in a regular order’. The word ‘with’ which follows it in the sentence denotes primarily ‘a relation of contract or association’. The idea put forward by the petitioner and adopted by the Court, that the use of ‘with’ instead of ‘to’ makes the order ambiguous and renders it ineffective, will not do. “It would be difficult to choose two words better able than the words employed here to put in brief compass the idea of cumulative service, the service of one sentence following in the train of, succeeding, the other sentence referred to.””
4 later decisions 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.