Keil v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 1990 · most notably Levenson v. Mobley (1987), Luna v. Flores (1958)
33 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 Chesher v. Shafter Lake Clay Co. · Radcliffe v. Chaves · Halford Ditch Co. v. Independent Ditch Co. · Martin v. Village of Hot Springs · Telluric Co. v. Bramer
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Supreme Court resolves all disputed facts in favor of appellee and views evidence in the aspect most favorable to him. * * * “A plurality of witnesses is not required in support of the execution and contents of a lost instrument, and the evidence of a single witness, unless otherwise provided by statute, may be sufficient. * * * “The principle that evidence required to establish a lost instrument and its contents must be clear and positive or clear and satisfactory, is not applied with equal vigor in every case. * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * it is said that error in the admission of evidence may not constitute ground for reversal where the evidence which has been admitted is merely corroborative or cumulative. * * * ‘Moreover, error committed in the admission of evidence may, on appeal, be considered to be harmless where the legal evidence abundantly established the case.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. Davis““ ‘In cases tried before the court, it will be presumed that the court ultimately disregarded inadmissible testimony, and the erroneous admission of testimony will afford no ground of error, unless it is apparent that the court considered such testimony' in deciding the case.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. Davis
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.