Sebree v. Dorr’s Empirical Analysis
22 U.S. 558 · 1824
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1979 · most notably Lessee of James Clarke v. John Courtney (1831), Ahlstedt v. United States (1963)
3 federal appellate · 19 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Riddle Co v. Mandeville and Jamesson · Mandeville Jameson v. Joseph Riddle 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * There is another objection, which is equally-decisive in this ease. It is that there was no production of the original notes, nor any excuse offered to account for the nonproduction of them at the trial. It is a genera] rule of the law of evidence that secondary evidence of the contents of written instruments is not adr missable, when the originals are within the control or custody of the party. Here no' proof was offered to show that the original notes were impounded, or that they were not within the -reach of the process of the court. Without such proof, the principles of the common law repudiate the introduction of copies; and copies were all that the record in the most favorable view of the plaintiff, presented to the court. But it is said that, the statutes of Kentucky, already referred to, dispense With the proof of the execution of instruments of this nature by the maker, and also of assignments by the assignor, unless the party will on oath deny the signature;and the assignment; and that the only object of producing-the originals is to establish these facts. The argument therefore is that the statutory provisions amount to dispensation with the general rules of evidence as to the production of the original notes. But to us it appears that the statutes of Kentucky ought to have no ■ such 'ñT terpretation. The object of the Legislature manifestly was-to dispense with the formal proof of instruments, where the party would not deny on oath the fact of their executi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Doughty v. Funk
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.