Interstate Co. v. Garnett’s Empirical Analysis
1929
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently April 2001 · most notably Brewer v. Memphis Publishing Co. (1980), Brush v. Laurendine (1933)
6 federal appellate · 34 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 Washington Gas Light Co. v. Lansden · Woodhouse v. Woodhouse Et Ux. · Green v. Weller · Yazoo & M. V. R. v. Scott · Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Lawrence
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We think the court below properly overruled the motion'to exclude this testimony for two-reasons. In the first place, there was no objection on the part of the appellant Faretto to this testimony, and it was clearly admissible in evidence as against him. . . . ‘ ‘ Since this testimony is in the nature of an admission made by the appellant Faretto, it was clearly admissible as to him, and the court properly overruled the motion of his codefendant the Interstate Company to exclude, it, and, since at the conclusion of the evidence the court was not requested to instruct the jury that this testimony should not be considered as against the Interstate Company, it cannot now complain of the admission thereof. However, we think it was admissible as against both defendants, since they were jointly liable in the action, if liable at all, and this testimony was in the nature of an admission made by one codefendant about a matter within the common purpose and relating to the joint interest in the matter out of which liability was alleged to have arisen. This rule is stated in 22 C. J. 352, in the following language: ‘Where two or more codefendants, if liable at all, are liable jointly, an admission of one is'competent against the other, provided it was made within the scope of the common purpose and relates to the joint interest in the matter out of which the liability is claimed to arise.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“adapted to our institutions and circumstances....”
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.