Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 121 Fla. 654 - Mallard v. Ewing

Mallard v. Ewing’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
1
states following
August 2014
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Johnson Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc. (1998), Jackson v. Parker (1943)

9 federal appellate · 44 state decisions

150193519401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 United States Savings Bank v. Pittman · Realty Bond & Share Co. v. Englar · Brett v. First National Bank of Marianna · Sun City Holding Company v. Schoenfeld · Blount Bros. Realty Co. v. Eilenberger

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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[i]t is also a generally recognized rule that parol evidence is admissible to establish a contemporaneous oral agreement which induced the execution of a written contract, though it may vary, change, or reform the instrument.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “* * * the rule is now generally recognized that the true or real consideration of the instrument may be shown by either party by any competent evidence although the consideration so shown may be different in the amount of quantity from the consideration expressed provided it is not inconsistent with it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Fees allowed mortgagee for his solicitor's services in foreclosure proceedings being intended as indemnity for expenditures necessarily made or incurred to protect his interest, he can recover from mortgagor only usual and customary fees which he has paid or obligated himself to pay solicitor.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.