Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 69 NY 309 - Bleecker v. . Johnston

Bleecker v. . Johnston’s Empirical Analysis

1877

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
January 1949
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1949 · most notably Mammoth Oil Co. v. United States (1927), Schwier v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad (1882)

2 federal appellate · 51 state decisions

18018771880189019001910192019301940decided

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

  1. ““It was not left to the jury to say whether, under the circumstances, the absence of the defendant was suspicious, so as to authorize an unfavorable inference, but they were told that it was the duty of the defendants to call him, and that the defendants being bound to produce him, his non-production not merely justified a favorable consideration of the evidence for the plaintiff, but that they might infer that his testimony would be adverse to the defendants, thus permitting the jury to give the plaintiff the benefit of the evidence of .the unsworn witness, as if he had given evidence in his favor.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““■The mere omission of a party to a civil action to call a witness who, at the most, has no other or better knowledge of the matter in dispute than those who are produced and give evidence, is not necessarily suspicious, entitling the adverse party to every presumption to his prejudice.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.