Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 275 U.S. 120 - Leach & Co. v. Peirson

Leach & Co. v. Peirson’s Empirical Analysis

275 U.S. 120 · 1927

Citation profile

118
cited by 118 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 118 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2014 · most notably Richards v. Forrest (1932), Ætna Life Ins. v. Kepler (1941)

40 federal appellate · 41 state decisions — followed in 13 states

2701927193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedA. B. Leach & Co. v. Peirson (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Swift v. Tyson · Davis v. Gray · Bucher v. Cheshire Railroad · Ex parte McNiel · Gold-Mining Company v. National Bank

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

  1. ““A man cannot make evidence for himself by writing a letter containing the statements that he wishes to prove. He does not make the letter evidence by sending it to the party against whom he wishes to prove the facts. He no more can impose a duty to answer a charge than he can impose a duty to pay by sending goods. Therefore, a failure to answer such adverse assertions in the absence of further circumstances making an answer requisite or natural has no effect as an admission.””
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.