Pulitzer v. Chapman’s Empirical Analysis
1935
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 96 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently April 1993 · most notably Hamilton v. Steininger (1943), Ellis v. United States (1943)
4 federal appellate · 96 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 Wendorff v. Missouri State Life Insurance · Jackson v. Hardin · Loehr v. Starke · Thompson v. Ish · Berkemeier v. Reller
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The presumption under consideration is not a mere legal fiction or procedural rule. It rests on a substantial basis of fact or inference. The presumption and fact, or inference, go hand in hand and really are the same thing. Hence; the presumption, with its underlying facts or inferences, once being in the case, never does or can disappear but raises an issue for the jury. * * * (Emphasis supplied)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“. . since the former sworn statements of the witness in the same cause not only tend to discredit him, but have probative value and meet the hearsay rule as well, including the right of confrontation, we can see no reason why, in the interest of justice and the elicitation of the truth, the statements should not go to the jury for what they are actually worth, on the same principle that allows statements made by a witness on cross-examination contradicting his testimony on direct examination to be received as substantive proof of the facts stated. To say such former statements may be considered as impeaching testimony but not as substantive evidence is to make a distinction without a difference. As the Supreme Court of North Carolina observed in Medlin v. County Board of Education ( 167 N. C. 239 ) ... a jury could not be expected to comprehend the distinction between the effect of a contradictory statement as impeaching evidence and as substantive evidence.” (Italics supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`A testator with mind enough to understand,' the ordinary affairs of life, the kind and extent of his property, who are the natural objects of his bounty, and that he is giving his property to the persons mentioned in his will, in the manner therein stated, is capable of making a will under the law of this state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hardy v. Barbour
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.