Addison v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A conspiracy may be shown by circumstantial evidence, by the acts or declarations of the conspirators, or by the cumulative effect of concerted action of the several parties concerned. 5 R.C.L., sec. 53, p. 1103; 12 C.J. sec. 231, p. 638. In State v. Ripley, 31 Me. 386 , it was said: “It is often, that the intentions of a wrongdoer are ascertained entirely by acts done, which are the natural effects of unlawful designs; the acts and circumstances which accompany them, showing the connection between the acts, and the motives which produced them, are generally the most convincing evidence which can be adduced.” When individuals associate themselves together in an unlawful enterprise, any act done in pursuance of the conspiracy by any of the conspirators is in legal contemplation the act of all. Metcalfe v. Conner, Litt.Sel.Cas. 497, 12 Am. Dec. 340 [, 16 Ky. 497 ], The mind of each being intent upon a common object and the energy of each being enlisted in a common purpose, each is the agent of all the others, and the acts done and words spoken during the existence of the enterprise are therefore the acts and words of each and all. Commonwealth v. Campbell, 7 Allen ([89]Mass.) 541, 83 Am. Dec. 705 ; U.S. v. Gooding, 12 Wheat., 460 , 6 L.Ed. 693 ; Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S. 426 , 23 L.Ed. 286 ; Logan v. U.S., 144 U.S. 263 , 12 S.Ct. 617 , 36 L.Ed. 429 ; Page v. Parker, 43 N.H. 363 , 80 Am. Dec. 172 . 142”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. James v. Wilson

2. ““The contract itself contained a declaration de signed to be invoked as a defense to anticipated actions or accusations. It was declared that the deal was made after both parties had seen and inspected all property involved in the trade. The precaution stamped the traders as formalists with appreciation of the value of surrounding the transaction with at least some semblance of fairness. Turner v. Hammock, 229 Ky. 836 , 18 S. W. (2d) 285 . “Moreover, as a sort of insulation against the shock of disclosure they knew was sure to follow, the defendants had prepared and executed a remarkable document certifying: “ ‘Whereas, we have this day consummated an exchange of property and merchandise, be it known that both parties to this deal have made said exchange upon their own inspection of property and merchandise placing their valuations of same, and that both parties are absolutely satisfied with all details connected with same.’ “That certificate was a confession in advance that defendants would need some fortification against an expected attack on their transaction. It is a common practice of sharp traders, but it does not deceive the courts.” (Numerous supporting cases cited.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Miller v. Wilson

3. ““It is insisted that the finding of the chancellor upon the facts was based upon conflicting evidence, and should not be reversed by this court. The question of fraud is compounded of law and fact, and, notwithstanding the great confidence reposed in the chancellor’s finding of fact, it is the duty of this court to read the record for itself, and, if such reading results in a clear conviction as to how the case should be decided, it is the duty and province of this court to render the correct judgment. Turner v. Hammock, 229 Ky. 836 , 18 S. W. (2d) 285 ; Ford v. Ford’s Ex’r, 233 Ky. 673 , 26 S. W. (2d) 551 . “It is only when the court, on the whole record, entertains serious doubt as to the correctness of a chancellor’s conclusion, that it is not disturbed. Martyn v. Jacoby, 223 Ky. 674 , 4 S. W. (2d) 684 ; Tackitt v. Newsom, 186 Ky. 188 , 216 S. W. 376 ; Jacobs’ Ex’r v. Meyers, 185 Ky. 594 , 215 S. W. 532 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Miller v. Wilson