Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 33 ALA 425 - Stallings v. State

Stallings v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1859

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
May 1924
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1924

4 state decisions

2018591860187018801890190019101920decided

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 Nelson v. Iverson · Thomas v. Degraffenreid · Price v. Mazange & Co. · Cook v. Parham · Lawson v. Orear

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

  1. ““In several cases decided in this court, it is held, that where a witness has been so situated that, if a fact, notorious and ostensible in its character, ever existed, he would probably have known it, his want of knowledge is some evidence, though slight, that it did not exist. Thomas v. Degraftenreid, 17 Ala. 602 ; Nelson v. Iverson, 24 Ala. 9 , 60 Am. Dec. 442 ; Blakey’s Heirs v. Blakey’s Ex’x, at this term ( 33 Ala. 611 ). It is obvious, that the principle on which these decisions rest is, that if the existence of a fact is shown, and it is also proved that a party was in a situation and had opportunities to know of it, .this is evidence .tending to prove that he did know of it. The rule is, that evidence having any tendency, however slight, to prove a particular fact, is competent to be submitted to the jury to show that fact. Eaton v. Welton, 32 N. H. 352.””
    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.