Nelson v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently April 1992 · most notably Britton v. Doehring (1970), King v. Jackson (1956)
3 federal appellate · 46 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 Palmer v. Hoffman · Chesapeake & Delaware Canal Co. v. United States · Wilson v. State · Lawson v. Mobile Electric Co. · Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Fox
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Any writing or record, whether in the form of an entry in a book or otherwise, made as a memorandum or record of any act, transaction, occurrence, or event, shall be admissible in evidence in proof of said act, transaction, or event, if it was made in the regular course of any business, and it was the regular course of the business to make such memorandum or record at the time of such act, transaction, occurrence, or event, or within a reasonable time thereafter. All other circumstances of the making of such writing or record, including lack of personal knowledge by the entrant or maker, may be shown to affect its weight, but they shall not affect its admissibility. The term, ‘business’ shall include business profession, occupation, and calling of every kind.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"[T]he rule has long prevailed in this state, as it does in most states, that the mere fact that testimony has been given in a cause in a former proceeding between the parties to a case on trial is no ground for admitting it in evidence. Even in such cases where there was opportunity for cross-examination before such evidence can be admitted it must be shown that the witness or witnesses whose testimony is offered are not available for examination at the time of the trial."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * Except in certain specified types of cases (see Southeastern Greyhound Line v. Callahan, 244 Ala. 449 , 13 So.2d 660 ), the rule in this jurisdiction is that as a result of prima facie proof or legal presumption the duty of going forward with the evidence shifts to the defendant but not the burden of proof. Lawson v. Mobile Electric Co., 204 Ala. 318 , 85 So. 257 ; Cox v. Roberts, 248 Ala. 372 , 27 So.2d 617 .””
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.