Doyle v. Hamilton Fish Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
234 F. 47 · 1916
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 1967
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 Russell v. Place · William W. Bierce, Ltd. v. Hutchins · Minneapolis St Ry Co v. Columbus Rolling-Mill Co · 10 E.H. Smith 393 - Zorkowski v. . Astor · Landon v. Clark
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[A] party has an election only between existing, not supposed, rights. * * * (To hold otherwise) would be to put him, not to an election, but to a correct estimate of his right under pain of forfeiture.””
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.