Peek v. Shook’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently December 1983 · most notably Bryant v. Kelly (1971), Godwin v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Company (1963)
42 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 Bunn v. . Todd · Davis v. . Pearson · Boyd v. . Williams · Barbee v. . Barbee · Sherrill v. . Wilhelm
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This statute does not render the testimony of a witness incompetent in any case unless these four questions require an affirmative answer: “1. Is the witness (a) a party to the action, or (b) a person interested in the event of the action, or (c) a person from, through or under whom such a party or interested person derives his interest or title? “2. Is the witness testifying (a) in his own behalf or interest, or (b) in behalf of the party succeeding to his title or interest? “3. Is the witness testifying against (a) the personal representative of a deceased person, or (b) the committee of a lunatic, or (c) a person deriving his title or interest from, through or under a deceased person or lunatic? “4. Does the testimony of the witness concern a personal transaction or communication between the witness and the deceased person or lunatic? “Even in instances where these four things concur, the testimony of the witness is nevertheless admissible under an exception specified in the statute itself if the personal representative of the deceased person, or the committee of the lunatic, or the person deriving his title or interest from, through, or under the deceased person or lunatic, is examined in his own behalf, or the testimony of the deceased person or lunatic is given in evidence concerning the same transaction or communication. “Somewhat similar analyses of the statute appear in the following authorities: Bunn v. Todd, 107 N.C. 266 , 11 S.E. 1043 ; Stansbury on the North Car”
5 later decisions 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.