Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 276 U.S. 299 - Mitchell v. Hampel

Mitchell v. Hampel’s Empirical Analysis

276 U.S. 299 · 1928

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
October 1975
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1975 · most notably Rochelle v. United States (1975), Coppard v. Atascosa County State Bank of Jourdanton (1932)

19 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

150192819301940195019601970decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedHampel v. Minkwitz (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Hiscock v. Varick Bank of New York · Schall v. Camors · Interstate Consolidated Street Railway Company v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Pigeon's Case · Myers v. International Trust 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We may assume that by the firm contract he is bound to the uttermost farthing but he is bound only as a member of the firm and therefore subject to the bankruptcy rule. His creditor may require more and we can see nothing to hinder his putting himself in the position of a separate debtor also. Certainly we find no prohibition in the bankruptcy law. Myers v. International Trust Co., 273 U. S. 380 , 47 S. Ct. 372 , 71 L. Ed. 692 . By making a separate contract although in the same instrument he calls the separate liability into being, as presumably he intends to and as he has a right to do.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.