Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 131 ALA 215 - Bomar v. Rosser

Bomar v. Rosser’s Empirical Analysis

1901

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
4
states following
January 1974
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 1974

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

5019011910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Moon's Adm'r v. Crowder · Thomason v. Odum · Young v. Arntze & Bros. · Day v. Thompson · Davis, Moody Co. v. Betz & Cullman

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

  1. ““The object of pleadings being merely to notify the opposite party of the ground of action or defense, if the party comes into court, it is not perceived why he may not waive the notice as in every other case, although the pleading may not advise him of the case or defense which is actually tendered in the evidence. Several of the best courts in the country proceed upon this enlightened view. The sound view is believed to be that the instructions have no connection with the pleadings, except through the evidence. The jury ‘find from the evidence,’ and not from the pleadings. The pleadings are intended to apprise the opposite party of the. ground of action or defense and to guide the court in admitting or rejecting evidence. The jury have nothing to do with them,” etc.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘Parties may try their controversies on illegal evidence, if they choose to do so.’ Moons v. Crowder, 72 Ala. 79 ; Osborn v. State, 125 Ala. 106 [ 27 South. 758 ]. The failure to object to the admission of this evidence or to move its exclusion was a waiver of all objections to its legality.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.