Adams v. Mackleer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The situation is not unique where, as in the present case, a declaration by a party would be admissible against him but not against others—co-defendants with him or with interests similar to his own,—but where, if the declaration were received as evidence against the person making it, the necessary result would be to prejudice such others; under these circumstances there is abundant authority to the effect that the declaration should be excluded entirely so as to protect those whom its admission would harm, even though the party offering it is thus precluded from the exercise of a right he would have had if the proceeding were against the declarant alone: Goodno v. Hotchkiss, 237 Fed. 686, 696 ; Windham v. Howell, 78 S.C. 187, 194, 195 , 59 S.E. 852, 854, 855 ; Continental Insurance Co. v. Delpeuch, 82 Pa. 225, 233 ; Lacock v. Commonwealth, 99 Pa. 207 . See also Dickinson College v. Church, 1 W. & S. 462, 465 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 415 Pa. Super. 480 - Havasy v. Resnick

2. “Appellant-mother was not appellant-son's authorized agent in this matter and was not empowered to make admissions on behalf of appellant-son.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 329 Pa. Super. 508 - DeFrancesco v. Western Pennsylvania Water Co.