Hickory v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

194 federal appellate · 8 district · 105 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 348 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When a party is taken by surprise by the evidence of his witness, the latter may be interrogated as to inconsistent statements previously made by him for the purpose of refreshing his recollection and inducing him to correct his testimony; and the party so surprised may also show the facts to be otherwise than as stated, although this incidentally tends to discredit the witness.” Hickory v. United States, 151 U.S. 303 , 309, 14 S.Ct. 334 , 336, 38 L.Ed. 170 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Poliafico v. United States · Troublefield v. United States

2. ““According to the general rule of the common law, the genuineness of disputed handwriting could not be determined by the court and jury by comparing it with other handwriting of the party, but among the exceptions to the rule was that if the paper admitted to be in the handwriting of the party or to have been subscribed by him was in evidence for some other purpose in the cause, the paper in question might be compared with it by the jury, (Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 271 [ 23 L.Ed. 346 ]; Rogers v. Ritter, 12 Wall. 317 [ 79 U.S. 317 , 20 L.Ed. 417 ];) and this with or without the aid of witnesses. ⅜ ⅜ * “By acts of parliament it is now provided in England, as ‘to all courts of judicature, as well criminal as others,’ ‘that comparison of a disputed writing toitli any writing proved to the satisfaction of the judge to he genuine, shall he permitted to he made hy the witnesses; and such writings and the evidence of witnesses respecting the same, may he submitted to the court and jury as evidence of the genuineness, or otherwise of the toriting in dispute.’ 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125; 28 & 29 Vict. c. 18. “Under these statutes it has been decided that any writings, of the genuineness of which the judge is satisfied upon the proof, may be used for the purposes of comparison, although they may not be admissible for any other purpose in the cause, (Birch v. Ridgway, 1 Post. & P. 270; Creswell v. Jackson, 2 Post. & P. 24;) and that the comparison may be made either by witness, or, with”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Glasgow v. State · Thompson v. Freeman

3. ““When a party is taken by surprise by the evidence of his witness, the latter may be interrogated as to inconsistent statements previously made by him for the purpose of refreshing his recollection and inducing him to correct his testimony; and the party so surprised may also show the facts to be otherwise than as stated, although this incidentally tends to discredit the witness. As to witnesses of the other party, inconsistent statements, after proper foundation laid by cross-examination, may be shown (Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Artery, 137 U. S. 507 [ 11 S. Ct. 129 ], 34 L. Ed. 747 ); but proof of the contradictory statements of one’s own witness, voluntarily called and not a party, inasmuch as it would not amount to substantive evidence and could have no effect but to impair the credit of the witness, was generally not admissible at common law. Best, Ev. § 645; Whart. Ev. § 549; Melhuish v. Collier, 15 Q. B. 878. “By statute in England and in many of the states, it has been provided that a party may, in case the witness shall in the opinion of tlxe judge prove adverse, by leave of the judge, show that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, and this is allowed for the purpose of counteracting actually hostile testimony with which the party has been surprised. Adams v. Wheeler, 97 Mass. 67 ; Greenough v. Eccles, 5 C. B. (N. S.) 786; Rice v. Howard, L. R., 16 Q. B. Div. 681.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tacoma Ry. & Power Co. v. Hays · Sullivan v. United States