Pierce v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
1859
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1967 · most notably Peugh v. Davis (1877), 24 Cal. 2d 1 - Beeler v. American Trust Co. (1944)
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 51 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 10 Cal. 2d 160 - Penziner v. West American Finance Co. · Boyd v. M'Lean · Miller v. Thomas · Low v. Henry · Jackson ex dem. Winthrop v. Ingraham
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“looks beyond the terms of the instrument to the real transaction; and when that is shown to be one of security, and not of sale, it will give effect to the actual contract of the parties. As the equity, upon which the court acts in such cases, arises from the real character of the transaction, any evidence, written or oral, tending to show this is admissible. The rule which excludes parol testimony to contradict or vary a written instrument has reference to the language used by the parties. That cannot be qualified or varied from its natural import, but must speak for itself. The rule does not forbid an inquiry into the object of the parties in executing and receiving the instrument. Thus, it may be shown that a deed was made to defraud creditors, or to give a preference, or to secure a loan, or for any other object not apparent on its face. The object of parties in such cases will be considered by a court of equity; it constitutes a ground for the exercise of its jurisdiction, which will always be asserted to prevent fraud or oppression and to promote justice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brick v. Brick““And the doctrine is both novel and startling which restricts, in matters of fraud, its jurisdiction over the operation of written instruments to those cases where the fraud has been committed in their creation. If maintained, it will sweep away its heretofore admitted jurisdiction in an infinite variety of cases of almost daily occurrence, where the fraud alleged consists in the use of instruments entered into upon mutual confidence between the parties. Fraud in their use is as much a ground for the interposition of equity as fraud in their creation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.