Fulkerson v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis
117 U.S. 389 · 1886
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably McMillan v. Aiken (1920), Wilson v. Snow (1913)
25 federal appellate · 66 state decisions — followed in 24 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 Phillips and Colby Construction Company v. Seymour et al. · James Carver v. James Jackson · Deery v. Cray · Blackburn v. Crawfords
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The fact to be established is one of pedigree. The proof to show pedigree forms a well-settled exception to the rule which excludes hearsay evidence. This exception has been recognized on the ground of necessity; for as in inquiries respecting relationship or descent facts must often be proved which occurred many years before the trial, and were known to but few persons, it is obvious that the strict enforcement in such cases of the rules against hearsay evidence would frequently occasion a failure of justice. Taylor on Evidence, ed. 1872, § 571. Traditional evidence is, therefore, admissible. Jackson ex dem. Ross v. Cooley, 8 Johns., N.Y., 128 ; Jackson ex dem. Garland v. Browner, 18 Johns., N.Y., 37 ; Jackson ex dem. Bogart v. King, 5 Cow., N.Y., 237 ; Davis v. Wood, 1 Wheat. 6 , [ 4 L.Ed. 22 ]. The rule is that declarations of deceased persons who were de jure related by blood or marriage to the family in question may be given in evidence in matters of pedigree. Jewell’s Lessee v. Jewell, 1 How. 219 , [ 11 L.Ed. 108 ]; Blackburn v. Crawfords, 3 Wall. 175 , [ 18 L.Ed. 186 ]; Johnson v. Lawson, 2 Bing. 86; Vowles v. Young, 13 Ves. [140], 147; Monkton v. Attorney-General, 2 Russ. & Myln. [147] 159; White v. Strother, 11 Ala. 720 . A qualification of the rule is, that, before a declaration can be admitted in evidence, the relationship of the declarant with the family must be established by some proof independent of the declaration itself. Monkton v. Attorney-General, 2 Russ. ”
2 later decisions 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.