Hamilton v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
773 F.2d 461 · 1985
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 11 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. W.R. Grace & Co. (1996), Baskin v. Hawley (1986)
5 federal appellate · 11 district · 9 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Burnett v. New York Central Railroad · Heyman v. Commerce & Industry Insurance · Burns v. Hartford Hospital
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when the plaintiff discovers both that he has suffered physical harm and the causal connection between that harm and the alleged negligent conduct of the defendant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No action to recover damages for injury to the person, or to real or personal property, caused by the negligence, or by reckless or wanton misconduct, or by malpractice of a physician, surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, chiropractor, hospital or sanatorium, shall be brought but within two years from the date when the injury is first sustained or discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered, and except that no such action may be brought more than three years from the date of the act or omission complained of, except that a counterclaim may be interposed in any such action any time before the pleadings in such action are finally closed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e do not think it the purpose of this part of Connecticut's statute of limitations that the game be over before a plaintiff has had his innings.”
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.