Fox v. Weissbach’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Phoenix Baptist Hospital & Medical Center, Inc. v. Aiken (1994), 8 Ariz. App. 281 - Spettigue v. Mahoney (1968)
1 federal appellate · 35 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 Martin v. Wood · Cox v. MacKenzie · Bates v. Mitchell · In Re Graham's Estate
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is the law of [Arizona] that ... the separate property of a member of a community is not liable for the payment of a community obligation”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The pleadings in a given suit are distinguished by Professor Wigmore in their office as admissions in the action of which they are a part and their use in other causes. This distinguished authority points out that the pleadings in a suit, for the purposes of that action, are not evidence but an express waiver of controversy, a limitation of the issues. As such they are conclusive subject to the right of amendment, etc---- It should be borne in mind, however, that we are not here dealing with a question of the effect of a pleading in an action wherein filed but rather its evidentiary value in another suit. Unquestionably allegations contained in a pleading used in other prior causes are admissions usable as evidence. Dean Wigmore terms this use as a quasi admission and states the rule as follows: “(1) A quasi-admission, of the present sort, being nothing but an item of evidence, is therefore not in any sense final or conclusive. The opponent, ■ whose utterance it is, may none the less proceed with his proof in denial of its correctness; it is merely an inconsistency which discredits, in a greater or less degree, his present claim and his other evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ ‘A quasi-admission, of the present sort, being nothing but an item of evidence, is therefore not in any sense final or conclusive. The opponent, whose utterance it is, may none the less proceed with his proof in denial of its correctness; it is merely an inconsistency which discredits, in a greater or less degree, his present claim and his other evidence.’ ” (Emphasis in original)”
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.