Davis v. Wyskup’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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

1. “‘•There are many cases illustrating the principle that the testimony of a witness, though uncontradicted, is for the triers of facts, whether court or jury, who are not bound thereby. “A typical illustration of the ‘double rule’ may be found in Gorman v. Hand Brewing Co., 2S R. I. 180, 66 Atl. 209 , when the court in sustaining the jury, who evidently disbelieved one of the defendant’s witnesses, said: “ ‘We have found no better statement of the principle under consideration than is made by Mitchell, Justice, in Anderson v. Liljengren, 50 Minn. 3 , 52 N. W. 219 . He says: “The rule undoubtedly is that, where the positive testimony of a witness is un-contradicted and unimpeached, either by other positive testimony or by circumstantial evidence, either intrinsic or extrinsic, it cannot be disregarded, but must control the decision of the court or jury. But a witness may be contradicted by the facts he states as completely as by direct adverse testimony. A court or jury is not bound to accept it as true merely because there is no direct testimony contradicting it, where it contains inherent improbabilities or contradictions, which alone, or in connection with other circumstances in evidence, satisfy them of its falsity.’ ” “ ‘Where the witness’s own statements create an impression of the improbability of the facts to which he testifies, * * * his evidence may be disregarded.’ Beatty v. Beatty, 151 Ky. 547 , 152 S. W. 540 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. General Exchange Ins. Corporation v. Edwards · Taggart v. Snipes