Hayes v. Muller’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 1979
2 federal appellate · 5 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 McDuffie v. Walker · Hanby v. Texas Co. · Scurto v. Le Blanc · Wier v. Glassell · Ceromi v. Harris
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule which forbids the proving of title to real estate by parol evidence is not applicable to evidence which is offered for some other purpose, for which it is relevant and competent, and which relates only collaterally and unavoidably to, and without establishing or affecting, the ownership of real estate. Wigmore on Evidence. (2d Ed.) Vol. 2, p. 863, § 1252; 22 C.J., p. 978, § 1224; p. 987, §§ 1230, 1231; p. 994, § 1249.” See also Dejean v. Whisenhunt, 191 La. 608 , 186 So. 43 (1938).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hayes v. Muller“jurisprudence of this State * * * has been consistent to the effect that the transfer of an interest in a mineral lease cannot be made the subject of a verbal agreement and cannot be proved by parol evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McKenna v. Wallis
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.