Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 78 ALA 489 - Adams v. Thornton

Adams v. Thornton’s Empirical Analysis

1885

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
December 1997
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 1997

1 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

60188518901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Lockhard v. Beckley · Shultz v. . Hoagland · Pickett v. Pipkin · Thames & Co. v. Rembert's Adm'r · Tesney v. State

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

  1. ““Charge 5, properly interpreted, lays down the same measure, and requires the same fullness of proof, as is required to authorize a conviction of crime; for facts proven, which are not explicable on any other reasonable hypothesis than . that of the guilt of the accused, will authorize a jury to convict of a criminal offense. This is not the correct rule in any civil case. Fraud requires no higher measure of proof for its establishment in any civil proceeding, than is required in many other cases, where the presumption of honesty, official uprightness, or kindred presumption, is to be overcome. The assailing party encounters the presumption of honesty and fair dealing; but it is a disputable presumption, the burden of overcoming which rests on him. When he produces facts and circumstances in evidence, which not only cast a suspicion on the transaction, but show a state of facts which are not fairly or reasonably reconcilable with fair dealing and honesty of purpose, then he has overcome the presumption of purity of intention, and is entitled to a judgment of condemnation. * * * ””
    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.