Hudson v. Riley’s Empirical Analysis
1919
Citation profile
2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently February 1992
2 district · 19 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 Kansas City, Wyandotte & Northwestern Railroad v. Ryan · Milich v. Armour Packing Co. · Miller v. Edgerton · Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Truskett · Phelps & Bigelow Windmill Co. v. Piercy
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It appears that some evidence was received which varied and contradicted the written contract. Where parties, after negotiations, commit their agreements to an unambiguous written contract, it is to be presumed that they have included in it every material matter, and parol evidence of the preceding negotiations or declarations, in conflict with the written contract, is not admissible. (Milich v. Armour, 60 Kan. 229 , 56 Pac. 1 ; Railway Co. v. Truskett, 67 Kan. 26 , 72 Pac. 562 .)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Boyd v. Colgan
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.