Stebbins v. Duncan’s Empirical Analysis
108 U.S. 32 · 1882
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1960 · most notably McPhaul v. United States (1960), Keely v. Moore (1904)
28 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 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 Burton v. Driggs · Younge v. Guilbeau · Choteau v. Jones · Lessee of James Clarke v. John Courtney
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.
““But if the witnesses had lived in another state, and more than a hundred miles distant from the place of trial, proof of the contents of their depositions would have been admissible. Burton v. Driggs, 20 Wall. 125 , 22 L. Ed. 299 . Therefore, to have made the objection tenable, it should have also been put upon the ground that the witnesses were not shown to reside in another state, and more than a hundred miles from the place of trial. This it did not do. When a party excepts to the admission of testimony, he is bound to state his objection specifically, and in a proceeding for error he is confined to the objection so taken. Burton v. Driggs, ubi supra. The original depositions were taken in the city of Washington. It is therefore probable that the witnesses resided there. If the copy of the depositions had been objected to because it was not shown that the witnesses resided out of the district, and more than a hundred miles from the place where the court was held, the plaintiffs below might have supplied proof of that fact. The objection, as it was made, was not broad enough and specific enough, and was therefore properly overruled, and the evidence admitted.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““If a party intended to use a deed or any other iiis.rument in evidence, he ought to produce the original if he has it in his possession, or, if the original is lost or destroyed, secondary evidence, which is the best the nature of the case allows, will then be admitted. The party, after proving any of these cir cumstanees, to account for the absence of the original, may read a counterpart, or, if there is no counterpart, an examined copy, or, if there is no examined copy, he may give parol evidence of its contents.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brown v. Harkins
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.