Hazelton v. Chaffin’s Empirical Analysis
1921
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 1974
20 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 Grommes v. St. Paul Trust Co. · N. B. Brown & Co. v. St. John Trust Co. · Miller v. Edgerton · Fontron v. Kruse · Fort Scott Coal & Mining Co. v. Sweeney
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Here the defense was a parol agreement at variance with the written contract. Such a defense is never permitted unless some species of fraud or mutual mistake is also pleaded and proved. Where there is neither plea nor proof of fraud or mutual mistake, it is conclusively presumed that the written contract contains the whole terms and the only terms of the contract; and a person who has thus obligated himself cannot defeat a recovery on such contract by parol evidence of matters at variance therewith. Were the rule otherwise the making of a written contract would be a vain and useless undertaking. This has always been the law in this state.” (p. 177.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Parker v. Mouse · Stanley v. Blair
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.