Robinson v. Morrison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Four Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Edition, § 1071, p. 70, says that the rule grew up that anything said in a party’s presence was receivable against him as an admission, and that the effort of the courts was to dislodge the absolutism of the rule. 'He concludes with the follow ing statement, quoted with’ approval in Kennedy v. State, [ 39 Ala.App. 676 , 107 So.2d 913 ,] supra: ‘ * * * it woui(j seem to be better to rule at least that any statement made in the party’s presence and hearing is receivable, unless he can show that he lacked either the opportunity or the motive to deny its correctness; thus placing upon the opponent of the evidence the burden of showing to the judge its impropriety. But the burden is in practice generally left upon the proponent to show that the requisite conditions existed; * * * ’ citing inter alia Raymond v. State, 154 Ala. 1 , 45 So. 895 . (Emphasis supplied.) “We agree with the correctness of the italicized statement, and approve of it in principle. Evidence of this variety is, at best, of doubtful value. The likelihood of a protestation is always balanced against the urge to avoid a fruitless disputation or the determination to refuse the accusation the credence of a reply. Sfí íj£ 5¡C »”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Caldwell v. State

2. ““Appellant contends that error was committed in giving three charges at the request of defendant relative to plaintiff’s contributory negligence, which fail to hypothesize that the plaintiff’s negligence must proximately contribute to her injuries. It is well settled that giving such a charge is reversible error, and that the error is not cured either by correct, written charges requested by the litigants (unless specifically requested to correct the erroneous ones) or by the oral charge. Carter v. Ne-Hi Bottling Co., 226 Ala. 324 , 146 So. 821 ; Terry v. Nelms, 256 Ala. 291 , 54 So.2d 282 .” .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Helton v. Easter

3. ““The granting’ of a motion to exclude evidence is never.'proper in Alabama.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stewart v. Peabody