Daniels v. Paddock’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2001 · most notably Miller v. Sears (1981), Cole v. Flathead County (1989)
30 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 Burnham Chemical Co. v. Borax Consolidated, Ltd. · Matter of Howell · Moore v. Rochester Weaver Mining Co. · Keenan v. Scott · Dickinson v. Bradford
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Evidence on Motions: Except as otherwise provided in Rule 56, when a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits presented by the respective parties, but, the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony, or depositions.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The authorities seem to be of two views as to whether oral testimony is proper in summary judgment proceedings. Rule 56 does not, in terms, authorize it, but does not prohibit it. But a pleading seeking summary judgment is, after all, a motion, and Rule 43(e) [citation] permits the court to hear oral testimony at a hearing on a motion. Permitting oral testimony might take the opposing party by surprise. On the other hand, the court would have the benefit of hearing cross examination and observing the witness which has certain advantages over affidavits and depositions. [Citations.] A decision on the propriety of using oral testimony in summary judgment proceedings is unnecessary here, and having confidence in the discretion of our trial courts, we decline to adopt any hard and fast rule. ⅜ * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“No principle has been so rigidly adhered to by the courts of this country and England than that where an attorney deals with his client for the former's benefit, the transaction is not only regarded with suspicion and closely scrutinized, but it is presumptively invalid on file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-333%20Opinion.htm (5 of 9)4/20/2007 2:10:45 PM No the ground of constructive fraud, and that this presumption can be overcome only by the clearest and most satisfactory evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Estate of Bolinger
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.