Ellison v. Norman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[2-4] The court rested decision sustaining the demurrer on the theory that ‘the matters brought up in the bill of complaint have been heretofore adjudicated by the Court, are res judi-cata.’ This ground of demurrer is not well taken, since there is nothing on the face of the pleadings to show any res judicata of the pending action. True, the demurrer exhibited two certain decrees which it is averred were rendered in two cases which are inci-dently referred to in the bill of complaint, but the grounds so alleging are regarded as speaking demurerrs and will not be considered. Watts v. Kennamer, 216 Ala. 64 (2), 112 So. 333 ; Sellers v. Valenzuela, 249 Ala. 627 , 32 So.2d 517 ; Blythe v. Enslen, 219 Ala. 638 , 123 So. 71 . “Counsel for appellees argue that these grounds of demurrer should be considered because the decrees referred to in the demurrer and made exhibits thereto are averred in the demurrer to have been decrees rendered in the two cases referred to in the bill, thereby requiring the trial court to take judicial knowledge of them. But these exhibits do not properly form any part of the demurrer and, as stated, the grounds setting them forth are speaking demurrers. The cases mentioned in the bill are not sufficiently pleaded to inform us ,as to their relation to the case in hand and there is nothing before us which could advise us of these decrees. The decrees were never reviewed by this court and we therefore do not take judicial knowledge of them so as to review the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williamson v. Burks