Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 U.S. 326 - Nicholls v. Webb

Nicholls v. Webb’s Empirical Analysis

21 U.S. 326 · 1823

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
25
states following
May 1974
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 67 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1974 · most notably Mutual Life Ins Co of New York v. Hillmon (1892), Constable v. National Steamship Co. (1894)

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 67 state decisions — followed in 25 states

1601823183018401850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Eisenbach v. Hatfield · Welsh v. Barrett · Whipple v. Foot · Farnum v. Fowle

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

  1. ““Tbe rules of evidence are of great importance, and cannot be departed from, without endangering private a well- as public rights. Courts of law are, therefore, extremely cautious in the introduction of any new doctrines of evidence, which trench upon old and established principles. Still, however, it is obvious, that as the rules of evidence are founded upon general interest and convenience, they must, from time to time, admit of modifications, to adapt them to the actual condition and business of men, or they would work manifest injustice.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We think it a safe principle that memoranda made by a person in the •ordinary course of his business of acts or matters which his duty in such business requires him to do for others, in case of his death, are admissible -evidence of the acts and matters so done. It is, of course, liable to be impugned by other evidence; and to be encountered .by any presumptions or facts which diminish its credibility or certainty.””
    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.