Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 142 SW2D 598 - Murphy v. Bain

Murphy v. Bain’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
2
states following
November 1971
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1971

5 state decisions

201940195019601970decided

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 Cooper v. Loughlin · Milliken v. Smoot · Hughes v. McDonald · Rea v. Johnson · Milan v. Williams

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

  1. ““In 2 Am.Jur. 608, para. 16, the author says: ‘A material alteration of an instrument by a party thereto will vitiate it, though made with no fraudulent intent whatever and with an entirely honest motive. The law holds the instrument void not because the thing done is actual fraud, but because a contrary rule would open the door for fraud, and because the alteration changes the legal identity of the paper and causes it to speak a language differing in legal effect from that which it originally spoke.’ “See also 2 Tex.Jur. page 963, para. 3, page 702, para. 11. “This assignment we sustain.””
    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.