Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 196 ALA 403 - Hackett v. Cash

Hackett v. Cash’s Empirical Analysis

1916

Citation profile

205
cited by 205 later decisions
4
states following
July 2011
most recently cited

205 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 205 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably Hodge v. Joy (1921), Andrews v. Grey (1917)

205 state decisions

74019161920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Thompson v. Collier · Baker v. Monumental Savings & Loan Ass'n · Copeland v. Phœnix Insurance

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

  1. “"The Legislature evidently intended, by this act of 1915, to provide for trials without a jury in all courts unless it was demanded, and to do away with the necessity of excepting to the finding or conclusion upon the facts in order to review the same in the appellate court, but did not mean to override a long line of the decisions of this court as to what weight would or would not be accorded the conclusion of the trial court upon the facts. Moreover, if it was otherwise intended, it would be an invasion of the judiciary to require this court to disregard the finding of the trial court upon facts when said trial court had a better opportunity to pass upon and consider the evidence than the appellate court."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Had Hackett attempted to comply with his contract and notified the company, and then the company declined to receive Cash as the beneficiary, we would have a different case, but, as he never undertook to properly transfer the policy and to notify the company, it can avail him nothing to try and excuse himself by saying the company might have rejected Cash as a beneficiary. He should have first complied with his contract and given the company a chance to do so instead of laying down on his contract and attempting to excuse himself upon the merest speculation that the company would not have accepted Cash in his place.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “can only apply where the opportunities of this court to consider the evidence is the same as the trial court, that is, when the evidence was taken by deposition.”
    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.