Bradley v. Adams Express Co.’s Empirical Analysis
89 F.2d 641 · 1937
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1966
6 federal appellate ·
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 Adams Express Co. v. Darden · Daniel Stringer v. The Lessee of John Young Archibald · Warren Live Stock Co. v. Farr · Adams Express Co. v. Darden · Watts v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The source of these divergent views is apparent enough. By the Courts adopting the first rule [that similar evidence by the opposing party is inadmissible] the emphasis is placed upon the circumstance that the opponent did not in the first instance object; hence, his waiver of objection leaves him without ground for maintaining that the original evidence was a wrong which estops the original offeror from now objecting. By the Courts adopting the second rule, on the other hand, [that similar evidence is always admissible by the opponent party] the emphasis is placed upon the original party’s voluntary action in offering the evidence, by which he. virtually waived future objection to that class of facts. Both these circumstances of waiver are true; it is simply a question of relative emphasis; hence the contradictory views. But it may be noted that under the first rule, in almost all the cases, the counter-evidence had been rejected below, while under the second rule, in almost all the cases the counter-evidence had been admitted below; i. e. the Courts under both rules reached practically the same result in that they refused to disturb the ruling below. This points to the true rule, namely, that since each party is alike in the condition of “volenti non fit injuria”, neither can complain of a ruling either admitting or rejecting, —a waiver being predicable of both. The matter is thus left in the hands of the trial Court. Modify this in certain cases by conceding to the opponen”
1 later decision 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.