Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 16 VT 113 - Mattocks v. Lyman & Cole

Mattocks v. Lyman & Cole’s Empirical Analysis

1844

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
10
states following
August 2014
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently August 2014

22 state decisions — followed in 10 states

40184418501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Vail v. Strong · Gale v. Lincoln

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “But when the claim is made for the mere purpose of drawing out evidence, as in the present case it is obvious must have been the fact, or when it is in the way of altercation, or, in short, unless the party asserting the claim does it with a view to ascertain the claim of the person upon whom he makes the demand, and in order to know how to regulate his own conduct in the matter, and this is known to the opposite party, and he remains silent, and thereby leads the adversary astray, mere silence is, and ought to be, no ground of inference against any one. The liabilities to misapprehension, or misrecollection, or misrepresentation are such that this silence might be the only security. To say, under such a dilemma, that silence shall imply assent to all which an antagonist may see fit to assert would involve an absurdity little less gross than some of the most (624) extravagant caricatures of this caricature-loving age. With some men, perhaps, silence would be some ground of inferring assent, and with others none at all. The testimony then would depend upon the character and habits of the party — which would lead to the direct trial of the parties, instead of the case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.