Burton v. Driggs’s Empirical Analysis
87 U.S. 125 · 1873
Citation profile
103 federal appellate · 1 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 191 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2009 · most notably Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf R. R. v. McDade (1903), District of Columbia v. Woodbury (1890)
103 federal appellate · 1 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 27 states
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 Young v. Preston
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 191 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““rt is a rule of law that when a party excepts to the admission of testimony he is bound to state his objections specifically, and in a proceeding for error he is confined to the objection taken. If he assigns.no ground of exception, the mere objection cannot avail him.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““When it is necessary to prove the results of voluminous facts or of the examination of many books and papers, and the examination cannot be conveniently made in court, the results may be proved by the person who made the examination. Here the object was to prove, not that the books did, but that they did not show certain things. The results sought to be established were not affirmative, but negative. If such testimony be competent as to the former, a multo Fortiori must it be so to prove the latter.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In Harper v. Cook, 1 Car. & Payne, 139, it was held that the contents of a lost affidavit might be shown by secondary evidence.' The necessity of re taking it was not suggested. In the present case the witness' lived in another state, and more than one hundred miles from the place of trial. The process of the court could not reach him. For all jurisdictional purposes, he was as if he were dead.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.