Parker v. . Marco’s Empirical Analysis
1893
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1993 · most notably Lamb v. Schmitt (1932), Netograph Manufacturing Co. v. . Scrugham (1910)
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 Person v. . Grier · Sanford v. Chase
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“i¡ :“No good reason can be perceived why the privilege should not be extended to a party appearing upon the examination of his adversary’s witnesses; where the testimony is taken pursuant to the authority of law, and can be read upon the trial with the same force and effect as if it had been taken in open court. It is a proceeding in the cause, which materially affects his rights; and the necessity for his attendance is quite a's’ufgenlkas it' Woiild be if the examination was had at the trial.’ But we do not think that thé question of the necessity of Ms presence is material. It is the right Of the party, as well as Ms privilege, to be present whenever evidence-is to be taken in the action, which may be used for the purpose of affecting its final determination. It is essentially a part of the trial, and should be so regarded so far as it may be necessary for the protection of the suitor.””
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.