Overton v. Harband’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

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

1. ““There is no question as to the general rule that a party to the instrument is disqualified to take the acknowledgments. This rule is established by the authorities, such as the case of Lee v. Murphy, 119 Cal. 364, 368 , 51 P. 549, 955 , cited by respondents, but when the only effect of the acknowledgment is to impart notice, as in the instant ease, the disqualification must appear on the face of the instrument. This exception to the general rule is recognized in Lee v. Murphy, supra, and in Merced Bank v. Rosenthal, 99 Cal. 39 , 31 P. 849 , 33 P. 732 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 236 F. Supp. 84 - In re Aerocolor, Inc.

2. ““When a witness is impeached by proof of prior inconsistent statements, the effect is merely to discredit him as a witness. The former statements made by him are incompetent for any other purpose. They do not constitute evidence of the truth of the facts so stated by him.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 79 Cal. App. 2d 332 - Kroplin v. Huston