16 E.H. Smith 12 - Schoepflin v. . Coffey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 31 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The record in this case seems to be entirely barren of proof that the defendant in any way procured, requested, commanded or induced the printing of the matters set forth in the complaint. The most that was established was that a person whom the defendant knew to be a reporter asked him as to a report which was in circulation concerning the matters alleged in the complaint, stating that he understood the defendant had asserted the facts, which were subsequently published, and the latter admitted having done so. There is, however, no proof that his statement was made for publication, but, on the contrary, the proof was that nothing was said upon the subject. There is also other evidence of the defendant which tends to show that he did not intend that it should be published and had no design to procure its publication. We are of the opinion that the court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a nonsuit, and in not directing a verdict for him upon the ground that the proof was insufficient to constitute a cause of action against him for libel.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. Gerasimos

2. ““We, have, however, searched the record in vain to find any proper objection or exception which enables the defendant upon this appeal to avail himself of the insufficiency of the complaint. To raise that question it was necessary that an objection to its sufficiency should have been taken, and the ground upon which it was claimed to be insufficient should have, been brought to the attention of the court. It is not a fatal objection on appeal that the cause - was tried outside the pleadings, in the absence of some specific objection to that course. Parties may, if they so elect, depart from the issues made by the pleadings and try other questions relating to the merits of the controversy by consent or acquiescence. Farmers’ L. & T. Co. v. Housatonic R. R. Co., 152 N. Y. 251 [ 46 N. E. 504 ]. As the question of the sufficiency of the complaint was not properly raised in the court below, it cannot be raised here for the first time.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beebe v. Schenectady Railway Co.