Daly v. Dimock’s Empirical Analysis
1887
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 1976 · most notably People Ex Rel. Lemon v. Supreme Court (1927), United States v. Mitchell (1976)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 25 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.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Tlie Legislature required that such testimony should be reduced to writing by a sworn officer and preserved for future reference. It is enough for our present purpose to say that it is a public document, relating to matters of public interest, and required by law to be kept by a public officer, who is the custodian of the records of judicial proceedings and other public documents. Tlie statute is silent in respect to the purpose for which such writings are preserved, a-nd the use to be made of them, and by whom. In the absence of any limil ation or restriction, we must assume that it was intended that they might be examined by any and all persons interested in the subject-matter. We do not consider that we are justified in saying that they may be inspected by one person, and not by another. In the absence of legislation to that effect, wo cannot say that they are for the exclusive use of one person or officer, or that any one person or class of persons may not inspect or use them. The writing in question relates to the prosecution of an indictment, before the superior court. We are asked to allow it to be used by tlie prosecution, and to sanction a refusal to let it be scon, even by the defense. We think, if the Legislature had intended any such distinction, it would have said so. It lias not said so, and wo fail to find anything in the statute to justify an implication to that effect. An attempt is made to find such an implication in that provision of tlie statute authorizi”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Greenbaum
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.