Alexander v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is perfectly clear that Watson and Sitterson were not entitled to the allowance for their services in testifying as witnesses. They did not testify as experts, but as to facts within their personal knowledge. This knowledge they had acquired as agents and attorneys for the corporation in receivership; and upon the trial of an action to which that knowledge was pertinent, the receivers were entitled to have them testify as ordinary witnesses for no other compensation than the fees provided by law. Certainly an allowance could not be made them on the theory, intimated in the testimony of Watson quoted above, that in giving testimony they gave to their former client the benefit of information which they might otherwise have withheld; for the information belonged to the client and they had no right to withhold it. Dorr v. Camden, supra. And quite apart from this, the giving of testimony as to facts within one’s knowledge is a matter of public duty, and one may not impose any condition upon the performance of that duty which the law does not authorize. Except in the case of expert witnesses, we know of no authority which would justify an allowance to witnesses in excess of ordinary witness fees, however valuable their testimony may have been to the parties calling them to testify.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brunson v. Daughtrity