Newman v. Tipton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In actions or proceedings by or against executors, administrators, or guardians, in which judgments may be rendered for or against them, neither party shall be allowed to testify against the other as to any transaction with or statement by the testator, intestate, or ward, unless called to testify thereto by the opposite party # * * ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Durham v. Webb · 62 Tenn. App. 333 - Watts v. Rayman

2. “‘The provisions of this statute, and similar statutes in all other jurisdictions, have given rise to countless decisions as to what constitutes a “transaction” between parties in interest and one who is deceased. We have no casé dealing with the question made on this appeal. All the cases from all jurisdictions hold that the statute was primarily intended to guard against an evil which might result from testimony of the living against the dead; that death having silenced the one, the law silences the other. McDonald v. Allen, 67 Tenn. 446 ; Bingham v. Lavender, 70 Tenn. 48 . In a foot note to the above Code Section it is said: “This statute can not be extended by the courts to cases not within its terms, upon the idea that they fall within the evil which was intended to be guarded against. As an exception, it must be strictly construed as agamst the exclusion of the testimony, arid in favor of its admission. ’ ’ (Emphasis supplied.) Citing numerous cases.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Hooper

3. “‘ ‘ It cannot be doubted that the statute would apply in many tort actions in which the plaintiff undertakes to relate conversations and transactions had with the deceased. Thus in a suit for conversion of property the plaintiff would be competent to testify as to where he left it, i. e., in whose custody but could not testify as to any admissions made by the deceased that he had received it or what had become of it. The statute does not inhibit testimony as to defects in property ascertained merely by observation. In an action ex delicto the plaintiff is not prohibited from describing that which is open to the unrestricted observation of any and all persons.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 40 Tenn. App. 197 - Christofiel v. Johnson