Malsby v. Gamble’s Empirical Analysis
1911
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 1986 · most notably Voges Motor Co. v. Ward (1929), Padgett v. State (1912)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"At the time such notes were offered in evidence, it had not been shown that the plaintiff owned or had any interest therein. The relevancy and materiality to the issue did not appear on their face, and, so far as is disclosed by the transcript, the plaintiff did not apprise the trial court of the purpose for which they were offered or promise to follow them up and connect them with other evidence, which would render them pertinent to the issues."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ittleson v. Browning“The mere fact that proffered evidence is not full and complete within itself but forms only one link in the chain, so that it would have to be supplemented by other evidence in order to avail the party offering it, may not render such evidence incompetent or inadmissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ittleson v. Browning“"Without such endorsement or assignment, its relevancy and materiality did not appear and the plaintiff did not offer or promise to connect it with other evidence."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ittleson v. Browning
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.