16 Ohio App. 3d 209 - Castle v. Daniels’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably 76 Ohio App. 3d 43 - Mason v. Swartz (1991), 177 Ohio App. 3d 121 - Amsbary v. Brumfield (2008)
30 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 C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co. · McBennett v. Piskur
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[T]he mere fact that the parties at the time of trial testify differently as to what their agreement was does not necessarily mean that there was no agreement between them, nor does it necessarily mean that they were not mutually mistaken concerning the expression of their agreement in the instrument; in this respect, it has been pointed out that if the fact alone that the parties testify differently at the trial would prevent a finding that there was an agreement between the parties, a court could never determine whether there was a contract in a lawsuit where the parties disagree and testify differently." 13 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1979) 363, Cancellation, etc. of Instruments, Section 76. Thus, where an action in reformation is commenced, credible testimony concerning the conduct of the parties, any course of dealing between them, and the method of handling the specific transaction in question are entitled to great weight in determining the ultimate facts; to wit, the agreement. Neff v. Ulman (Oct. 23, 1981), Darke App. Nos. 1027 and 1028, unreported (citing Haller v. Holthouse [App.1952], 68 Ohio Law Abs. 156 , 121 N.E.2d 662 ).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“believed that the intended conveyance was different from that contained in the deed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“. . . [Wlhere an action in reformation is commenced, credible testimony concerning the conduct of the parties, any course of dealing between them, and the method of handling the specific transaction in question are entitled to great weight in determining the ultimate facts; to wit, the agreement. The trial court committed no error in finding that the appellees had met their burden of proving mutual mistake by clear and convincing evidence. Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 279 , 376 N.E. 2d 578 [ 8 O.O.3d 261 ]. Castle, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brenneman v. Kurtz
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.