Adams v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 2009
5 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 Robinson v. Moseley · Umphrey v. Barfield · Gamble v. Aultman & Co. · Wood & Son v. Riley · Moog v. Barrow
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘ * * * As said by Mr. Daniel, (1 Dan.Ch.Pl. & Pr., 711, 713): “It is of great importance to the pleader, in preparing an answer, to bear in mind that besides answering the plaintiff’s case as made by the bill, he should state to the court upon the answer all the circumstances of which the defendant intends to avail himself by way of defense; for a defendant ought to apprise the plaintiff by his answer of the nature of the case he intends to set up, and that, too, in a clear, unambiguous manner; and, in strictness, he cannot avail himself of any matter of defense which is not stated in his answer, even though it should appear in his evidence.” The answer must put in issue all the facts on which the defendant relies in bar of the relief sought by the bill, and evidence cannot be adduced of facts outside of these issues; otherwise, the answer does not apprise the complainant of the line of defense which will be resorted to, nor afford him that opportunity for preparation to meet it which is the leading purpose of all pleading, and which the complainant is always entitled to with respect to a matter of defense affirmative in character and relied on to defeat and overturn a prima facie case made by the bill. — Wood v. Pebbles, supra [ 121 Ala. 100 , 25 So. 723 ]; Freeman v. Stuart, supra [ 119 Ala. 158 , 24 So. 31 ]; Robinson v. Moseley, 93 Ala. 70 , 9 So. 372 ; Moog v. Barrow, 101 Ala. 209 , 13 So. 665 . ’ ””
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.