Peques v. Dilworth’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Champlin Oil & Refining Company v. Chastain (1966), Continental Bus System, Inc. v. Biggers (1959)
40 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 Choate v. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Co. · Carl v. Settegast · Massie v. Hutcheson · Dale v. Simon · Massie v. Hutcheson
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * where a suit is for reformation there must be a finding upon evidence that is `clear, exact, and satisfactory' that the mistake of fact was mutual; also, as stated in the same case, that the party seeking reformation must prove by such evidence not only `what the true agreement was,' but `must go further and establish the fact that the terms or provisions of the writing which differ from the true agreement made were placed in the instrument by mutual mistake.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Equity has jurisdiction to reform written instruments in cases of mutual mistake, but a written contract will not be reformed in equity because of a mistake, in the absence of fraud, unless it is mutual; that is, common to both parties, and each under the same mistake as to its terms”, (cited cases omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In so far as it is the prerogative of the Supreme Court to determine, the evidence is ‘clear and satisfactory,’ in that it ‘is not ambiguous, equivocal or contradictory,’ and is such as convinced a presumably unbiased and unprejudiced jury.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wiseman v. Priboth
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.