May v. Hatterick’s Empirical Analysis
1924
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
February 1935
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Noe v. Davis · Reese Lumber Co. v. Licking Coal & Lumber Co. · Kohlman v. Moore · Baker v. Owensboro Savings Bank & Trust Co.'s Receiver
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is much force in the argument, but it must not be forgotten that a litigant is entitled to be present in court, both in person and by counsel; also the employment of counsel is not compulsory. Even if Hatterick neglected to employ Counsel, still it was his right to be present in person at the trial of his case, and if prevented from so attending by sickness, this would seem to be an unavoidable casualty.” May v. Hatterick, 203 Ky. 170 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Adams v. Nelson
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.