Mima Queen and Childs for Freedom v. Hepburn’s Empirical Analysis
11 U.S. 290 · 1813
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 4 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 118 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2018 · most notably Pointer v. Texas (1965), California v. Green (1970)
42 federal appellate · 4 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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 Wallen v. Williams · Windt v. Banniza · Paxton v. Danforth's Administrator
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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It was very justly observed by a great judge that ‘all qnesiions upon the rules of evidence are of such vast importance to all orders and degrees of men; our lives, our liberty and our property are all concerned in the support of these rules, which have been matured by the wisdom of ages and are now revered for their antiquity and the good sense in which they are founded.’ One of these rules is that ‘hearsay’ evidence is in its own nature inadmissible. That this species of testimony supposes some better testimony which might be adduced in the particular case is not the sole ground of its exclusion. Its intrinsic weakness, its incompetency to satisfy the mind of the existence of the fact, and the frauds which might be practiced under its cover combine to support the rule that hearsay evidence is totally inadmissible.””
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That hearsay evidence is incompetent to establish any specific fact which fact is in its nature susceptible of being proved by witnesses who speak from their own knowledge.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is certainly much to be desired that jurors should enter upon their duties with minds'entirely free from every prejudice. Perhaps on general and public questions it is scarcely possible to avoid receiving some prepossessions, and where a private right depends on such a question the difficulty of obtaining jurors whose minds are entirely uninfluenced by opinions previously formed is undoubtedly considerable. Yet they ought to be superior to every exception, they ought to stand perfectly indifferent between the parties, and although the bias which was acknowledged in this case might not perhaps have been so strong as to render it positively improper to allow the juror to be sworn on the jury, yet it was desirable to submit the ■case to those who felt no bias either way, and therefore the court exercised a sound discretion, in not permitting him •to be sworn.”
1 later decision 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.