Stone v. Stone’s Empirical Analysis
136 F.2d 761 · 1943
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 5 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Legille v. Dann (1976), Fattibene v. Fattibene (1981)
21 federal appellate · 5 district · 22 state decisions
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 Williams v. State of North Carolina · John Haddock v. Harriet Haddock · Graves v. United States · Chesapeake Ry Co v. Martin · New York Life Insurance v. Gamer
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * In this case there was positive testimony, uncontradicted, and not inherently improbable. Neither a jury nor a judge is at liberty to disregard such evidence. [Footnote omitted.] ‘ * * * where the testimony is all one way, and is not immaterial, irrelevant, improbable, inconsistent, contradicted, or discredited, such testimony cannot be disregarded or ignored by judge or jury, and if one or the other makes a finding which is contrary to such evidence, or which is not supported by it, an error results, for which the verdict or decision, if reviewable, must be set aside. * * * Kelly v. Jackson, 6 Pet. 622, 631 , 8 L.Ed. 523 .’””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sarda v. Sarda““ ‘They are, in truth but mere arguments,’ and ‘depend upon their own natural force and effica.cy in generating belief or conviction in the mind.’ They have no significance so far as affects the duty of one or the other party to produce evidence, because there is no rule of law attached to them, and the jury may give to them whatever force or weight it thinks best, — just as it may to other evidence. There may be a preliminary question whether the evidence is relevant and admissible as having any probative value at all; but, once it is admitted, the probative strength of the evidence is for the jury to consider.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Koehne v. Price““ * * * It is the purpose of the law of the District to require caution in the granting of uncontested divorces [footnote omitted], and to prevent the granting of default decrees, without proof. [Footnote omitted.] But it is just as much the purpose of the law that marriages procured by fraud may be set aside, at the instance of the innocent party.” [Footnote omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sarda v. Sarda
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.