Dye v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 1973
12 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 Lankford v. Holton · Perkins v. Rowland · Castleberry v. Parrish · Howard v. Simpkins · Chamblee v. Pirkle
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Code sections cited [38-1603 (1), 38-1603 (5)] specifically prohibit the opposite party from testifying in his own favor as to transactions or communications with a deceased party, or the deceased agent of a party. The defendant's conversation with the deceased agent of the bank being incompetent and inadmissible would have no more probative value than hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence, although admitted without objection, is `without probative value and insufficient to prove anything.' Pool v. Duncan, 202 Ga. 255, 258 ( 42 S. E. 2d 731 ). See also Minor v. Fincher, 206 Ga. 721, 729 ( 58 S. E. 2d 389 ). The alleged conversation of the defendant with the deceased agent of the bank, being inadmissible and incompetent, had no probative value.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.