Hahn v. Kelly’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

131 state decisions

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

1. ““. . . The use of the words ‘superior’ and ‘inferior,’ or ‘limited’ and ‘general,’ and ‘proceeding according to the course of the common law,’ in the statement of the rule in question, however apt they may have once been, are less so at this time and place, and their duties, in view of our system and mode of procedure, would be better performed by the terms ‘Courts of record’ and ‘Courts and tribunals not of record.’ If anything further is added, the phrase ‘proceeding according to the course of the statute which regulates proceedings in civil cases’ should be employed instead of the phrase under consideration, for the statute has superseded the common law, without however abrogating the rule in hand, the conditions being changed, but not the principle. Our District Courts, County Courts and Probate Courts, the latter having been put in this respect upon the level of superior Courts at common law by express statutory provision, (Statutes 1858, p. 95, 1863, p. 339, Sec. 46,) are superior Courts in the sense of this rule, while Courts held by Justices of the Peace, Boards of Supervisors, and other Boards exercising judicial functions of a limited and special character, are inferior. Superior Courts at common law, in the sense of this rule, were those which sat in Westminster Hall — the King’s Bench, the Common Pleas and Exchequer — the former, as orgmally instituted, having jurisdiction in criminal cases, the second in civil actions, and the latter in matters of revenue. In a c”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fischer v. Kipp

2. “when the proof of service of process consists of the written admission of the defendants, such admission, to be available in the action, should be accompanied with some evidence of the genuineness of the signatures of the defendants,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 21 Cal. App. 405 - Shirran v. Dallas

3. ““That palter -with us in a double sense; That keep the word of promise to our ear, And break it to our hope.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harwood v. Wentworth