Young v. Holland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 15 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Counsel for appellees have argued with great force that to maintain the express trust by parol evidence would violate that principle of law nowhere more closely adhered to than in this State, that parol evidence cannot be admitted to vary, contradict, add to or explain the terms of a written agreement. If at the common law an express declaration of trust, such as is here sought to be established, was lawful, and if by the statute of frauds as adopted in this State the common law was not in this respect altered, then such an express declaration remains lawful. In the nature of things an oral declaration can only be established by oral evidence, and we do not think that the position can be maintained that an oral declaration of trust is sanctioned by our law and the only possible mode of proof is to be excluded; in other words, we cannot maintain a right and exclude the only mode of proof by which that right can be established.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Daniel v. Viar

2. ““If they (trusts in lands) be within our statute of frauds, then it must be by force of the sixth clause of section 2840 (now section 5561) which says that ‘no action shall be brought in any of the following eases: * * * Sixth. To charge any person upon any contract for the sale of real estate or for the lease thereof for more than a year, unless it be in writing.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Daniel v. Viar