Vicksburg v. O'Brien’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

175 federal appellate · 10 district · 109 state decisions

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

1. ““The principal constitutes the agent his representative, in the transaction of certain business; whatsoever, therefore, the agent does wMle in the lawful prosecution of that business is the act of the principal whom he represents. And ‘where the acts of the agent will bind the principal there his representations, declarations, and admissions respecting the subject-matter will also bind him if made at the same time, and constituting a part of the res geste.’ They are of the nature of original evidence, and not of hearsay; the representation or statement of the agent in such cases being the ultimate fact to be proved, and not an admission of some other fact. * * ⅞ It is because it is a verbal act, and part of the res gestee, that it is admissible at all; and, therefore, it is not necessary to call the agent himself to. prove it; but, wherever what he did is admissible in evidence, there it is competent to prove what he said about the act while he was doing it.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Peirce v. Van Dusen · Attleboro Mfg. Co. v. Frankfort Marine, Accident & Plate Glass Ins.

2. ““While this court will not disturb a judgment for an error that did not operate to the substantial injury of the party against whom it was committed, it is well settled that a reversal will be directed unless it appears beyond doubt that the error complained of did not and could not have prejudiced the rights of the party.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Farese v. United States · Alaska Commercial Co. v. Dinkelspiel

3. ““ * * * There is some authority for the position of defendant that the declaration of decedent should be excluded .as a mere narrative of a. past transaction; but we think that the better rule, .and that supported by the weight, of modern authority, requires its admission as having been made under the immediate influence of the occurrence to which it related and so. near the- time of that occurrence as to negative any probability of- fabrication. See 31 Yale L. Journal 229, 35 H.L.R. 447; Wigmore on Evidence (2d Ed.) § 1747 et seq. and cases cited. As pointed out by Professor Wigmore, it is not necessary'to render such declarations admissible .that they be strictly contemporaneous with the occurrence to which they relate, and- admissible under 'what it called the ‘Verbal Act’ doctrine. They are admissible, not because they fall without the hearsay rule, as in the case .of ‘verbal acts,’ but because 'they fall within an exception to that rule; it being considered that there is a sufficient guarantee of the trustworthiness of such 'declarations to render them admissible, if they are made under the immediate influence of' the 'occurrence to which they relate. ‘The’ circumstantial guarantee here consists in the consideration’ * * *' that in the stress of-nervouá excitement the reflective faculties maybe stilled and .the utterance may become the unreflecting and sincere expression of one’s actual impressions and belief.’. To render them admissible what is required is: (-.1) There ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. Mahaffy · Solice v. State