Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 244 Ala. 73 - Mitchell v. McGuire

Mitchell v. McGuire’s Empirical Analysis

1943

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
February 1974
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1974

8 state decisions

401943195019601970decided

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 Pridmore v. State · Johnson v. Williams' Admr. · Lienkauf & Strauss v. Morris · Worthen v. State ex rel. Verner · Phillips v. Morrow

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

  1. ““We wish further to indicate that the case of Worthen v. State ex rel. Verner et al., 189 Ala. 395 , 66 So. 686 , supra, is directly in point. It holds that a similar affidavit was sufficient to institute proceedings for disbarment of an attorney at law, and further that such an affidavit would be the foundation for prosecution for perjury. This is the test of the sufficiency of an affidavit.” Under the foregoing authorities, if the words “to the best of my knowledge and belief” had been used in an affidavit, a charge of perjury would be sustained. If this be true, then these words will not detract, so far as pleading is concerned, from the allegations, as set forth in the bill, “that the representations set out and averred in Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 hereof were false * * * and made with actual intent to deceive.””
    1 later decision 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.