Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 188 U.S. 510 - Leach v. Burr

Leach v. Burr’s Empirical Analysis

188 U.S. 510 · 1903

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
April 1983
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 3 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1983 · most notably Gatenby v. Altoona Aviation Corporation (1969), Stormon v. Weiss (1954)

19 federal appellate · 3 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 11 states

140190319101920193019401950196019701980decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. · Ronkendorff v. Taylor's Lessee · William Early v. John Doe · Higgins v. Carlton · Clarke v. Larremore

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

  1. “Upon questions of this kind ■ submitted to a jury the burden of proof, in this District at least, is on the caveators. Dunlop v. Peter, 1 Cranch C. C. 403 . See also Higgins v. Carlton, 28 Maryland, 115, 143; Tyson v. Tyson’s Executors, 37 Maryland, 567. The caveators in the- present case failed to sustain this burden, and we are of the opinion, that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict against .them. The judgment is affirmed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “* * * If evidence thus secured could be thus used, the result would be to make what was intended to be a private deliberation, the constant subject of public investigation; to the destruction of all frankness and freedom of discussion and conference. * * * " Id. Furthermore, the jury had a right "* * * to take into consideration that which is common knowledge * * *.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “of sound mind, capable of executing a valid deed or contract,”
    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.