Perry v. Haritos’s Empirical Analysis
1924
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably State v. Kirby (2006), Carten v. Carten (1966)
3 federal appellate · 79 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 Mitchum v. State · Ritchie v. Waller · Starcher v. South Penn Oil Co. · Morse v. Consolidated Railway Co. · Roach v. Great Northern Railway Co.
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The courts which have adopted this exception. to. the hearsay, rule follow closely Wigmore’s exposition, and neither they nor jurists-who have written upon, this subject have been able to add anything of consequence to this exposition; but their reiteration has tended to clarify it. When the declaration follows some startling occurrence, and is made with reference to it, by one having an opportunity to observe the matter of which he speaks, and in. such close connection to th.e event, and under such circumstances as to negative the opportunity for deliberation and -fabrication, and to. indicate that it was a spontaneous utterance growing out of the nervous excitement and mental and physical condition of the declarant it is reasonably probable that it is -trustworthy. The spontaneity of the utterance is the guaranty of its trustworthiness; If the utterance does not relate to the .accident or. occurrence, or the declarant has had no opportunity to observe that of which he speaks, it cannot fall within this principle. The relation of the utterance in point of time to the accident or occurrence, while an important element to be considered ' in determining whether there has been opportunity for reflection, is not decisive. The element of time, the circumstances and manner of the accident, the mental and physical condition of the declarant, the shock produced', the nature of the ’ utterance, whether against the. interest of the declarant, or not, or made in response to question or”
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.