Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 114 F.1d 155 - Delaware, L. & W. R. v. Devore

Delaware, L. & W. R. v. Devore’s Empirical Analysis

114 F. 155 · 1902

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
April 1932
most recently cited

3 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1932

3 federal appellate ·

101902191019201930decided

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 Grand Trunk Ry Co of Canada v. Ives · Little v. Hackett · Bull v. . Case · Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Lapsley · Lewin v. . Lehigh Valley Railroad Company

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The request asserts the proposition that positive testimony of witnesses is entitled to more weight than the negative testimony of other witnesses, and makes no discrimination in regard to the credibility in other respects of the' two classes of witnesses. The positive class may impress the triors with lack of confidence in their trustworthiness, their disinterestedness, their accuracy; but the request establishes as a rule of law that positive testimony is entitled to superior credit whether other things are equal or not, and is, we think, a broader rule than a court should be called upon to give to a jury, without reference to the credibility of the witness in other respects.” D. L. & W. R. R. Co. v. Devore, 52 C. C. A. 77 , 114 Fed. 155 , 156.”
    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.