Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 F.2d 705 - Gilbert v. Gulf Oil Corp.

Gilbert v. Gulf Oil Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

175 F.2d 705 · 1949

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
7
states following
February 2008
most recently cited

42 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently February 2008 · most notably Lawrence v. Kozlowski (1976), John W. Wilson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New York Corporation and Volkswagenwerk, A. G., a Foreign Corporation, Wolfsburg, Western Germany (1977)

42 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

2001949195019601970198019902000decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1732

Relies on Palmer v. Hoffman · United States v. 25.406 Acres of Land · Franklin v. Skelly Oil Co. · Marshall v. Sellers · Illinois Power & Light Corp. v. Hurley

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

  1. ““Nor does the letter qualify under the ‘official statement’ or ‘public document’ exception to the hearsay rule. This is designed to obviate the constant attendance of public officers in court to prove routine matters, Wig-more, Evidence, (3d. Ed.,) § 1631, whereas in the instant case the signers of the letter were available as witnesses and present in court. Furthermore, as pointed out in Franklin v. Skelly Oil Co., 10 Cir., 141 F.2d 568, 572 , 153 A.L.R. 156 ‘expressions of opinion and conclusions on causes and effects based upon factual findings are not always admissible as public records, especially when it is shown either that the conclusion or opinion which the statement purports to convey would not be admissible in evidence if tendered by the direct testimony of the maker, or if the denial of the right of cross-examination could result in the perversion of the rule of trustworthiness and reliability. See Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. Meador, 186 Okl. 397 , 98 P.2d 20 .’ See also, Illinois Power & Light Corp. v. Hurley, 8 Cir., 49 F.2d 681 ; Note 153, A.L.R. 156; 20 Am.Jur. § 1027; 1948 Cum.Supp. § 1027.””
    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.