Gaffney v. Stanard’s Empirical Analysis
1912
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 1935
13 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 Board of Comrs. of Washita Co. v. Hubble · Sawyer & Austin Lumber Co. v. Champlain Lumber Co. · Board of Commissioners v. Wright · Wagner v. Sattley Mfg. Co. · Frame v. Ryel
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This question requires an examination of the evidence. The case purports to contain the evidence, but the record contains no recital or other statement that it contains all the evidence introduced in the trial of the cause. There is a certificate of counsel that the case contains all the evidence, also a certificate of the stenographer that his transcript contains all the evidence, but neither of these certificates are authorized or recognized. The case itself must contain the positive averment, by way of recital, that it does contain all the evidence submitted or introduced on the trial of the cause; and, in the absence of such recital, this court will not review any question depending upon the facts for its determination. This question has been .repeatedly decided. Frame v. Ryel, 14 Okla. 536 , 79 Pac. 97 ; Board of Washita County v. Hubble, 8 Okla. 169 , 56 Pac. 1058 ; B. K. & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Grimes, 38 Kan. 241 , 16 Pac. 472 ; Ryan v. Madden, 46 Kan. 245 , 26 Pac. 680 ; Pelton v. Bauer, 4 Colo. App. 339 , 35 Pac. 918 ; Eddy v. Weaver, 37 Kan. 540 , 15 Pac. 492 ; Hill v. Bank, 42 Kan. 364 , 22 Pac. 324 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““In order to consider the questions sought to be reviewed by the plaintiff in error, it is essential to examine the evidence heard by the trial judge. The defendants in error in their brief,, however, contend that the evidence cannot be considered by this court, as the case-made does not contain, a positive averment by the way of recital that it contains all the evidence introduced or submitted on the trial of the cause. Where such a recital in the case-made is lacking, it has been time and again held by this court that it will not review any question depending upon the facts for its determination.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““This defect in the case-made is called to the attention of the court by the brief of defendants in error. Counsel for plaintiff in error have replied to this brief, insisting that the certificate of counsel is sufficient, but making no request for permission to correct the case-made.””
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.