Petty v. Sloan’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 124 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 163 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Bob Pearsall Motors, Inc. v. Regal Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. (1975), Realty Shop, Inc. v. RR Westminster Holding, Inc. (1999)
10 federal appellate · 124 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 Smithart v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. · Home Beneficial Ass'n v. White · Hester v. Ford · 11 Smith & H. 376 - Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. v. Boyd · Kirschner v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States
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 163 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'It is not within the function of the judiciary to look outside of the contract ... to get at the intention of the parties and then carry out that intention regardless of whether the instrument contains language sufficient to express it; ... the language of the instrument ... must be sufficient, when looked at in the light of such facts as the court is entitled to consider, to sustain whatever effect is given to the instrument.' "). Tennessee cases have stressed that courts cannot form a new contract for parties under the guise of interpretation, noting that a contract "may contain terms which may be thought harsh and unjust. A court is not at liberty to make a new contract for parties who have spoken for themselves.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We in considering the contract find that it does not contain technical expressions. The contract, it seems to us is expressed in non-technical language and subject to be, and capable of being, read and understood by the citizens and taxpayers of the County. This being true it certainly seems that in construing the meaning of this language that the word ‘treatment’ should be given its ordinary meaning. The Alabama Courts have held that the word ‘treatment’ in common parlance and often in law is a broad term covering all the steps taken to effect a •cure of an injury or disease. Hester v. Ford, 221 Ala. 592 , 130 So. 203 . This seems a reasonable statement for one to apply to the term as herein used. * * *» 1”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is ... the contention of the appellants that if a contract is plain and unambiguous it is a question of law and it is the function of the court to interpret the contract as written-according to its plain terms. It was their contention also that the intention of the parties is expressed by the language of the contract when used in an unambiguous instrument and must be given effect though it was not actually the intention entertained by one or more of the parties to the contract. These contentions are well supported by numerous authorities in this State.”
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.