Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 159 ARK 445 - Arkmo Lumber Co. v. Cantrell

Arkmo Lumber Co. v. Cantrell’s Empirical Analysis

1923

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
2
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably Ferguson Lumber Co. v. Scriber (1924), Valley Planing Mill Company v. Lena Lumber Co. (1925)

2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions

14019231930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 1 E.H. Smith 402 - Thomson v. . Poor · Murray v. Boyd · Williams v. Porter · Ranson v. Sheehan · Talbot v. Wilkins

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

  1. “McClung and Scroggin could have entered into a valid parol contract for the repairs and improvements on the McClung plantation, but they did not elect to do so. They chose to embody the contracts as to repairs and improvements in the written contract of lease. Having thus made it a part of the written contract of lease, they could not afterwards take it out and substitute a new parol contract as to the improvements without modifying the written lease contract, which the statute of frauds required to be in writing.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “We have held in several cases that the rule which excludes parol evidence for the purpose of varying a written contract is confined to the parties to the contract, and does not preclude a stranger to it from introducing such evidence. Talbot v. Williams [sic], 31 Ark. 411 ; Gates & Bro. v. Steele, 48 Ark. 539 ; Barfield Mercantile Co. v. Connery, 150 Ark. 428 .”
    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.