Gray v. Rhoads’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, relative to the subject matter of the civil action, without such writing being shown to him. . . . This section is subject to the qualification, that in an action to recover for a personal injury or death by wrongful act or neglect, no ex parte affidavit or statement in writing other than a deposition, after due notice, of a witness and no extrajudicial recording made at any time other than simultaneously with the wrongful act or negligence at issue of the voice of such witness, or reproduction or transcript thereof, as to the facts or circumstances attending the wrongful act or neglect complained of, shall be used to contradict him as a witness in the case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stern v. Alves · Ruhlin v. Samaan

2. “A trial court's exercise of discretion to admit or exclude evidence will not [ordinarily] be overturned on appeal unless the court abused its discretion. However, a trial court has no discretion to admit clearly inadmissible evidence because admissibility of evidence depends not upon the discretion of the court but upon sound legal principles.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ruhlin v. Samaan · Turner v. Com.

3. “The opening phrase of Code § 8.01-404 states that “[a] witness may not be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, relative to the subject matter of the civil action, without such writing being shown to him.” We have held that this opening portion of a prior version of the statute “applies only to the cross-examination of a witness . . . and not to an examination in chief of one’s own witness.” The statute then sets out the steps that must be followed “if it is intended to contradict such witness by the writing.” The use of prior written statements to contradict a witness is, however, made subject to the prohibition at issue here, “in an action to recover for a personal injury or death by wrongful act . . . no extrajudicial recording of the voice of such witness, or reproduction or transcript thereof. . . shall be used to contradict him as a witness in the case.” The plain terms of Code § 8.01-404 limit the application of the prohibition at issue to those situations where a prior written statement is used to “contradict” a witness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Richards v. Reed