Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 36 LAANN 89 - State v. Barfield

State v. Barfield’s Empirical Analysis

1884

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
March 1959
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1959

7 state decisions

3018841890190019101920193019401950decided

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 Coggeshall v. Home for Friendless Children

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

  1. ““Ordinarily a negative averment has not to be proved, and often cannot be. The negation is not susceptible of proof, other than by proof of the affirmative fact which'is'denied. The negation here is that knowledge of the crime was not brought to a public officer of requisite authority. The proof must be of the affirmative fact that such knowledge was thus brought to him. Upon whom is the onus? “It must rest on the party who can most conveniently and most certainly make the proof. Now an affirmative can more certainly, naturally, and logically be proved than a negative. If the onus is on the state, then it must prove that knowledge was not brought to any of its officers who had authority to investigate the crime. It must prove a universal negative. If the onus is on the defendant, he need only prove that knowledge was brought to one of such officers. He need only prove a particular affirmative.””
    1 later decision 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.