Hamilton v. MacDonald’s Empirical Analysis
503 F.2d 1138 · 1974
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably Federal Trade Commission v. H. N. Singer, Inc. (1982), Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald (1976)
29 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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 Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · New York v. Penn Central Transportation Co. · Gardner v. California · Jones v. Healing
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rule 69(a)(1) was adopted because: The drafters of the Federal Rules, in merging the two sets of procedures formerly applicable to federal courts sitting in law or equity, did not consider development of an entirely new series of rules on supplementary proceedings worthwhile. They therefore simply continued former practice. As most states had adequate supplementary proceedings to enforce money judgments, Rule 69(a) followed R.S. s 916 in adopting state practice for execution of a money judgment, whether it derived from a formerly legal judgment or equitable decree.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Process to enforce a judgment for the payment of money shall be a writ of execution, unless the court directs otherwise. The procedure on execution . . . shall be in accordance with the practice and procedure of the state in which the district court is held . . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Kerlo · Gabovitch v. Lundy“If, as appellant appears to suggest, compliance will not be voluntarily forthcoming, then the district court possesses an ample reservoir of power to command respect for its orders.”
2 later decisions 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.