Rice v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 20 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The negotiable-instruments law (Gen. Stat. 1915, § 6543) authorizes the testimony of which the plaintiff complains. It reads: “ ‘As between immediate parties, and as regards a remote party other than a holder in due course, . . . the delivery may be shown to have been conditional, or for a special purpose only, and not for the purpose of transferring the property in the instrument.’ [R.S. 52-216.] “The finding of the court that at the time of the delivery of the mortgage it was understood and agreed between the parties that the mortgage was to be used only for the accommodation of plaintiff in case he so desired, but otherwise was not to become of any force or effect as a lien upon the property, that it had not been so used but remained in the possession of the plaintiff at all times since, is a finding of the facts which brings the case within the section of the statute just quoted.” (pp. 24, 25.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wilhoit v. Seavall

2. “"A case in point is Campbell v. Davis, et al, 94 Miss. 164 . The parol evidence went to show that the actual consideration was $200, but that at the payee’s request the amount was stated as $700 in order that the payee might use the paper as collateral. The court held that this does not violate the rule against parol evidence to vary a writing, but is merely showing the real consideration for the note. . . .” (p. 24)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. First Construction Co. v. Gallup

3. ““Between the original parties to a written instrument the rule excluding parol evidence in contradiction of a written agreement is not infringed by proof that the instrument was never delivered, or was delivered to take effect only upon the happening of some future event.” (Syl. f 3.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Greenleaf State Bank v. Monteith