Peralta v. Durham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If a party fails to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter as requested under Rule 198 and if the party requesting the admissions thereafter proves the genuineness of the document or the truth of the matter, he may apply to the court for an order requiring the other party to pay him the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorney fees. The court shall make the order unless it finds that (1) the request was held objectionable pursuant to Rule 193, or (2) the admission sought was of no substantial importance, or (3) the party failing to admit had a reasonable ground to believe that he might prevail on the matter, or (4) there was other good reason for the failure to admit.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Williams · Zuniga v. Medina

2. “Although a judicial admission relieves the opposing party of his obligation to present evidence on the issue, the fact admitted is proved for the purposes of trial.... A judicial admission must be taken as true by the court and the jury, and the declarant cannot introduce evidence to contradict it_Because Per-alta’s conduct was proved for purposes of the trial against her, we conclude rule 215.4(b) is applicable to her conduct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Perkins v. Star Transportation, Inc.

3. “Peralta’s reading of rule 215.4(b) is too limited and would defeat the purpose of the rule.... If a party could avoid the sanction by admitting the matter on the eve of trial, after discovery has been done and expenses incurred by the opposing party, the purpose of the rule 215.4(b) would be thwarted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Perkins v. Star Transportation, Inc.