Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 180 F.2d 537 - Orvis v. Higgins

Orvis v. Higgins’s Empirical Analysis

180 F.2d 537 · 1950

Citation profile

277
cited by 277 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
August 2011
most recently cited

208 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 277 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2011 · most notably Anderson v. City of Bessemer City (1985), Pullman-Standard v. Swint (1982)

208 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 12 states

11501950196019701980199020002010decided

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 26 U.S.C. § 833

Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · United States v. Yellow Cab Co. · United States v. Aluminum Co. of America · Lehman v. Commissioner

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

  1. ““ * * Where a trial judge sits without a jury, the rule varies with the character of the evidence: (a) If he decides a fact issue on written evidence alone, we are as able as he to determine credibility, and so we may disregard his finding, (b) Where the evidence is partly oral and the balance is written or deals with undisputed facts, then we may ignore the trial judge’s finding and substitute our own, (1) if the written evidence or some undisputed fact renders the credibility of the oral testimony extremely doubtful, or (2) if the trial judge’s finding must rest exclusively on the written evidence or the undisputed facts, so that his evaluation of credibility has no signifi-' canee, (c) But where the evidence supporting his finding as to any fact issue is entirely oral testimony, we may disturb' that finding only in the most unusual circumstances.’ ””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “* * * Where a trial judge sits without a jury, the rule varies with the character of the evidence: (a) If he decides a fact issue on written evidence alone, we are as able as he to determine credibility, and so we may disregard his finding. * * *”
    2 later decisions 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.