Drumm-Flato Commission Co. v. Edmisson’s Empirical Analysis
208 U.S. 534 · 1908
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2000 · most notably Felix v. Hall-Brooke Sanitarium (1953), Jones v. United States (1922)
39 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
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 Dyer v. National Steam Navigation Co. · Lincoln v. Claflin · District of Columbia v. Leigh Robinson · Frazer v. Bigelow Carpet Co.
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To the contention the Supreme Court of the territory replied that the entries were not a part of the res gestae„ that besides the books were not produced, and that, neither they nor the original entries were attached to the original deposition of the witness, nor were they shown to be lost.' * * * It is, however, contended that the books were before the notary who took the deposition of the bookkeeper, and that copies of the entries were made by the notary; that when the copies were offered as evi dence they were immediately objected to as incompetent, immatrial, and not the best evidence. The Commission Company, was, therefore put upon notice that the production of the books themselves would be insisted on. The notary was not trying the case, and, before the court and jury who were trying the case, the objections to the copy of the entries were renewed. We think that the books should have been produced; they were intended as independent evidence — independent of the witness from whose returns they were made.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is a still stronger reason why the ruling of the coitrt should be upheld. The defendant did not produce the proof in court, nor was the book of the original entries therein attached to the deposition of the witness Burnett, hence we think it was clearly incompetent to attempt to prove the entries by permitting the deposition of the witness Burnett to be read to the jury as to the contents of the book. We know of no rule of evidence that would permit a witness to state the entries or the accounts of a book account, unless the books are lost or destroyed.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It may be that in the absence of statute the general rule is that in actions for tort the allowance of interest is not an absolute right (Lincoln v. Claflin, 7 Wall. 132 [ 19 L. Ed. 106 ]; The Scotland, 118 U. S. 507 [ 6 Sup. Ct. 1174 , 30 L. Ed. 153 ]; District of Columbia v. Robinson, 180 U. S. 92 [ 21 Sup. Ct. 283 , 45 L. Ed. 440 ]; Frazer v. Bigelow Carpet Co., 141 Mass. 126 [ 4 N. E. 620 ]), but the Oklahoma statute has made interest a part of the detriment caused by the conversion of personal property. Other states have done the same.””
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.