Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 46 MICH 112 - Lamb v. Hinman

Lamb v. Hinman’s Empirical Analysis

1880

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
3
states following
June 1947
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 1947

23 state decisions

501880189019001910192019301940decided

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 Williams v. Morris · Case v. Peters · Wright v. Wright · Jones v. Tyler · Kinyon v. Young

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

  1. ““The reason why taking possession under an oral contract is recognized as a ground for specific performance when payment of the purchase price is not, is that in one case there is no standard for the estimate of damages when the contract is repudiated, and in the other there is a standard that is definite and certain.””
    2 later decisions 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.