Burthe v. Denis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As a general rule, the judgment of a court or commission is to be interpreted by its own langauge, and the pleadings or proceedings upon which it is founded. Extrinsic evidence to aid in its interpretation is inadmissible unless after reference to the pleadings and proceedings there remains some ambiguity or uncertainty in it. In such cases, resort may be had to other evidence, as where, from the generality of the language in the pleadings or proceedings, as well as in the decision, it becomes necessary to ascertain and limit the extent of the judgment intended. Thus, where a former judgment is pleaded in bar of a second action upon the same demand, it is competent to show by extrinsic evidence the identity of the demands in the two cases, if this does not appear on the face of the pleadings. [Washington, Alexandria & Georgetown Steam] Packet Co. v. Sickles, 24 How. 333 [ 16 L.Ed. 650 ]; Miles v. Cald well, 2 Wall. 35 [ 17 L.Ed. 755 ]; Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 355 [ 24 L.Ed. 195 ].” See also 50 C.J.S., Judgments, § 841.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 113 F. Supp. 845 - Van Brode Milling Co. v. Kellogg Co.