Ex Parte Hilton’s Empirical Analysis
1902
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1984
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.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“no Judge shall preside, at the trial of any cause, in the event of which he may be interested, or when either of the parties shall be connected with him, by affinity or consanguinity, within such degrees as may be prescribed by law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jeffers v. Jeffers“After a trial has been commenced, no attempt to recuse a Judge will be listened to, unless it be shown, affirmatively, that the party was not aware of the objection, and was in no fault, for not knowing it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jeffers v. Jeffers“No Judge or other judicial officer, shall preside on the trial of any cause, where he may be connected with either of the parties by consanguinity or affinity, within the sixth degree.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jeffers v. Jeffers
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.