Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 477 F.2d 908 - Melvin R. Hamilton v. Emery L. Miller and Mary Katherine Miller

Melvin R. Hamilton v. Emery L. Miller and Mary Katherine Miller’s Empirical Analysis

477 F.2d 908 · 1973

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
February 2001
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 2001

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

601973198019902000decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 3601 (§ 801 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))

Relies on Evers v. Dwyer · Davis v. Cities Service Oil Co. · United States v. 79.95 Acres of Land, More or Less · Bush v. Kaim · Newbern v. Lake Lorelei, Inc.

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

  1. “As in any case where a determination of credibility dictates a result the chance of an injustice is ever present. But we cannot, as we are here urged in effect to do, try the case de novo. Such is not the function of an appellate court. The resolution of conflicting evidence, as exists in this case, is particularly within the province of the trial court and findings must be given added weight when we consider the opportunity of the trial judge to hear and observe the witnesses.”
    1 later decision 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.