Madden v. Madden’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2011
17 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 United States v. Crescent Amusement Co. · Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co. · Zimmern v. United States · Wilentz v. Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World · Ohio Public Service Co v. State of Ohio Fritz
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the outset, the court conceded that: Under the rules [Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure], it is not clear whether the pendency of any motion that terminates the running of the time for appeal nullifies the effect of a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of the motion. ( Id. at 150 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the rules, the substance of the pleading controls, not the nomenclature given to the pleading,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“hold that appellant's first notice of appeal was a nullity.”
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.