Sprinkle v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
111 F.2d 925 · 1940
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently December 2000 · most notably United States v. Brown (1973), 32 Cal. 2d 491 - People v. Dabb (1948)
38 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 11 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 Green v. Ruffin · Southern Railway Co. v. Bailey · State v. United Railways & Electric Co. · Johnson v. Kellam · Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Poole's Adm'r
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Even if it be conceded that the offered evidence was inadmissible, counsel were nevertheless entitled to offer it in good faith, free from threat of punishment by the court. Actions taken by counsel during the course of trial under a mistaken view of the law do not constitute contempt of court; and a careful examination of the record convinces us that there was no such perseverence by defendant’s counsel in a mistaken point of view contrary to the rulings of the court as to constitute improper conduct on their part. ’ ’ (And, also, In re Lake, 65 Cal.App. 420 [ 224 P. 126 ].)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"* * * In such a situation, the established rule is that the evidence should be accepted and the only question to be determined is what precaution should be taken to prevent, as far as possible, the misuse of the evidence. The instruction of the court, given either upon its own motion or at the request of the opposing party, suffices for this purpose. Wigmore on Evidence, 2d Ed. § 13. * * *"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“evidence is not admissible to show that an injured plaintiff has been compensated for his injury under an accident insurance policy, because the liability of a defendant for injuries inflicted through his negligence is not relieved or reduced by compensation paid to the injured man from a collateral or independent source.”
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.