Iverson v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently March 2011
2 federal appellate · 21 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 Smith v. Smith · Clark v. Hudson · Johnson v. Battles · Hamilton v. Browning · King v. Jackson
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . . [I]t was discretionary with 3?the trial court as to whether to permit the court reporter to read to the jury the desired extracts from Wilhite’s testimony. Landers v. Hayes, 196 Ala. 533 , 72 So. 106 ; Lanford Co. v. Buck, 220 Ala. 190 , 124 So. 418 . In sending the jury back to the jury room without permitting the testimony to be read and in failing to recall the jury for that purpose the trial court, in effect, declined the jury’s request, a matter within its discretion. We can see no possible injury to the defendant from this action in that counsel for defendant apparently were unwilling for Wilhite’s testimony to be read to the jury. Certain it is that the trial court was not advised that the defendant wanted the testimony to be read or was willing for it to be read.””
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.