Smith v. Gale’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 federal appellate · 14 district · 102 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 231 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An applicant for intervention has a right to intervene under Practice Book Sec. 99 where the applicant's interest is of such a direct and immediate character that the applicant”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Murray v. American Surety Co. · Pitts v. Commissioner

2. ““Intervening parties. Intervention defined.- — -At any time before trial any person who has an interest in the matter in litigation may, by leave of court, intervene in the suit, action or proceeding. Intervention takes place when a third person is permitted to become a party to a suit, action or proceeding between other persons, either by joining the plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint, or by uniting with the defendant in resisting the claims of the plaintiff, or by demanding anything adversely to both the plaintiff and defendant, and is made by complaint, setting forth the grounds upon which the intervention rests, filed by leave of the court and served upon the parties to the suit, action or proceeding who have not appeared, and upon the attorneys of the parties who have appeared, who may answer or demur to it within ten days from the service thereof, if served within the county wherein said suit, action or proceeding is pending, or within twenty days if served elsewhere.” § 1-315, Oregon Code 1930, pp. 235-236.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brune v. McDonald

3. “The record of the instrument is really but secondary evidence, although by statute it is made primary; and it would be sticking in the bark to hold that the original instrument, having the official seal of the notary to the acknowledgment, should be defeated by the fact that in recording such instrument the seal was accidentally omitted. . . . It would be a singular perversion of the principles of natural justice if, with a perfect deed before the court and a record which lacked only a scrawl or other symbol of a seal, neither could be admitted in evidence by reason of the fact that they did not exactly correspond, or, to speak more accurately, were not exactly identical, especially when the record could be amended on the spot by adding the representation of a seal. [ Smith v. Gale, 144 U.S. 509, 523 , 12 S.Ct. 674 , 36 L.Ed. 521 (1892).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. White v. Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute