Miles v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 160 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 187 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably DeWitt County Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Parks (1999), Morrow v. Shotwell (1972)
9 federal appellate · 160 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 Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co. · Kelley v. Ward · Cook v. Smith · Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority v. City of San Antonio · Marshburn v. Stewart
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 187 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“simply a device for ascertaining and giving effect to the intention of the parties and cannot be applied arbitrarily and without regard to the realities of the situation.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[m]ight well suggest to a prudent purchaser that the provisions and legal effect of the deed were not in accordance with the agreement and understanding of the parties. Whether a person of ordinary prudence with knowledge of this recital would have been put on inquiry and whether a diligent search would have led to a discovery of the mistake are issues to be determined by the trier of fact under all the evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[E]quity and justice being the ultimate aims of all rules of law, this and other courts have not been so rigid in their application of this rule. Numerous exceptions are as well established as the rule itself. As shown by the cases hereinafter cited, this presumption that a grantor or grantee has immediate knowledge of a mutual mistake contained in a deed is rebuttable, and there are various circumstances, such as subsequent conduct of the parties as though the deed had not contained the error, which will excuse a delay in discovery of the mutual mistake. This Court has never permitted the rule to blindfold it to the true facts concerning actual discovery of the mutual mistake and subsequent conduct of the parties with respect thereto. "The weight of authority is that once the presumption of immediate knowledge is rebutted, the statute of limitation will commence to run when the mutual mistake was, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been, discovered...."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brown v. Havard
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.