Mitchell v. Chance’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 6 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A latent ambiguity exists where: “the equivocality of expression, or obscurity of intention, does not arise from the words themselves, but from the ambiguous state of extrinsic circumstances to which the words of the instrument refer, and which is susceptible of explanation by the mere development of extraneous facts, without altering or adding to the written language, or requiring more to be understood thereby than will fairly comport with the ordinary or legal sense of the words and phrases made use of.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Burlison v. United States · Lemeh v. Scott (In Re Tom Nebel, P.C.)

2. “The rules governing the interpretation of deeds are well-settled and are designed to enable the courts to ascertain the intention of the parties to the deed. Collins v. Smithson, 585 S.W.2d 598, 603 (Tenn.1979); Barber v. Westmoreland, 601 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Tenn.Ct.App.1980). The courts should first seek the parties’ intention by examining the words in the deed, Hutchison v. Board, 194 Tenn. 223, 227-28 , 250 S.W.2d 82, 84 (1952), and by considering these words in the context of the deed as a whole. Collins, 585 S.W.2d at 603 ; Barber, 601 S.W.2d at 714 ; Quarles v. Arthur, 33 Tenn.App. 291, 295 , 231 S.W.2d 589, 590 (1950).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. David Hodge v. Shelly Renae Cornelison