Spiering v. Spiering’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As there was an entire absence of intent to defraud on the part of plaintiff, as the alteration was merely to correct a mistake and make the instrument conform to the undoubted intention of the parties, we are of the opinion that in reason the better rule is that the instrument is not avoided. It may well be said that the alteration was not a material one under the circumstances, and that it did not change the legal effect of the instrument. In addition to the discussion and authorities found in Corpus Juris, the casé of Busjahn v. McLean, 3 Ind. App. 281 , 29 N. E. 494 , is much in point. There is nothing in any of our OAvn cases that works against this view. On the contrary, the often repeated statements that an alteration, to avoid an instrument, must be made with intent to defraud, and must be a material one, strongly support the conclusion reached.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hannah v. State Bank