Harris v. Haynes’s Empirical Analysis
1861
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 1970
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 Fullam v. Stearns · Hill v. Wentworth · Lull v. Matthews · Wilson v. Hooper · Bartlett v. Wood
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The iron shafting put up in the building for the purpose of turning and putting in motion the machinery * ⅜ * we are disposed to regard as a constituent part of the mill. The shafting was necessary to communicate the motive power to the machinery, and should be regarded as a part of the mill as much as a water wheel by which a water power is called into existence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Giddings v. Freedbey
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.