Parker v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * if counsel voluntarily and without legal right injects into the case the fact of insurance carried by his opponent it may be the cause for granting a new trial, although no motion or objection was made as to it at the time of its occurrence. To insist upon and argue such a matter at that time would tend to magnify the fact in the estimation of the jury. It would therefore seem appropriate to wait and make a motion for a new trial if the verdict is adverse and have that as one of the grounds. That would justify a consideration of the question on its merits as to whether it was injected into the trial without any necessity therefor and voluntarily by counsel in order to prejudice the case against the defendant. In determining that question the whole situation must be considered in order to find whether counsel has voluntarily injected into the case matter which is prejudicial and ineradicable, and which was improper to be done under the circumstances. We cite a number of recent cases which state principles of law material to this situation: Clark v. Hudson, 265 Ala. 630 , 93 So.2d 138 ; Colquett v. Williams, 264 Ala. 214 , 86 So.2d 381 ; Pearson v. Birmingham Transit Co., 264 Ala. 350 , 87 So.2d 857 ; Hudson v. Stripling, 261 Ala. 196 , 73 So.2d 514 ; Wagnon v. Patterson, 260 Ala. 297 , 70 So.2d 244 ; Vredenburgh Saw Mill Co. v. Black, 251 Ala. 302 , 37 So.2d 212 .” Parker v. Williams, 267 Ala. 12, 15 , 99 So.2d 210, 212 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gwin v. Church