Richmond v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

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

1. “"May a party introduce his own deposition as evidence at the trigl? The Rule provides that ‘the deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds’ the existence of any one of five enumerated conditions. It seems clear that the deposition of a party may be used as evidence at the trial when either the first, third, or fifth condition of Rule 32 (a) (3) is fulfilled. The fourth condition is not applicable to •the case where a party desires to offer his own deposition as evidence at the trial. A question arises, however, whether the second condition prevents a party, in the absence of the first, third, or fifth conditions, from using his own deposition as evidence at the trial. The second condition provides that the deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party if the court finds ‘that the witness is at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the United States, unless it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the deposition.'’ The crux of the question is whether ‘absence’ in the above italicized ‘unless’ clause means absence from the territory embraced within a radius of 100 miles from the place of trial or absence from the trial. If the former meaning is- correct, a party, who resides .more than 10.0 miles .from .the place.of trial,”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank · Kono v. Auer

2. “"The tactical burden assumed by the plaintiff in proceeding to trial in her [own] absence ... is likely to limit frequent resort to this course; but a suitor not able to afford a New York trip should not be denied all remedy here."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kartell v. Kartell · Smith v. Morrison-Knudsen Co.

3. ““It is suggested, as in 4 Moore’s Federal Practice 1195-1197 (2d Ed. 1950), that the ‘unless’ clause just quoted may present an issue of construction as to whether the ‘absence’ in question is from the territory embraced within the 100-mile radius or is from the trial itself, and that only the former interpretation (which is favored) permits a California resident as such to use his own deposition. Perhaps too much is made of this assumed dichotomy; it is not apparent why in this carefully defined context absence from the trial should not be tested for the validity of the excuse on the same principles as absence from the territory. Be that as it may, the language used, referring to different stages of trial or hearing, and obviously pointing back to the defining clause which sets forth the basic reasons for admissibility, makes it quite clear that the former is meant.” 227 F. 2d at 493 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank · King v. International Harvester Co.