Brockmeyer v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently January 2006 · most notably Higgins v. Barnes (1987), Hoffman v. Chapman (1943)
31 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 Loughran v. Ramsburg · Dulany v. Rogers · Powell v. Moody · Cohen v. Numsen · Keedy v. Nally
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The authorities all require that the parol evidence of the mistake and of the alleged modification must be most clear and convincing, — in the language of some judges, ‘the strongest possible,’ — or else the mistake must be admitted by the opposite party; the resulting proof must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Courts of equity do not grant the high remedy of reformation upon a probability, nor even upon a mere preponderance of evidence, but only upon a certainty of the error.” (Emphasis the author’s.) Id. 353-54.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘the description [of the land used in the contract] ... be such as to enable the court to determine with certainty, with the aid of such extrinsic evidence as is admissible under the rules of evidence, what property was intended by the parties to be covered thereby. The description need not be given with such particularity as to make a resort to extrinsic evidence unnecessary. Reasonable certainty is all that is required.’ (Citations omitted.)” Powell v. Moody, 153 Md. 62, 66 , 137 A. 477, 478 (1927).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martin v. Michaels““It is incumbent, however, upon the party seeking to reform a written instrument to show by conclusive proof, that it does not embody the final intention of the parties; Courts will not rectify it unless it was executed under a common mistake—both parties having done that which neither of them intended. A mistake on one side may be ground for rescinding, but not for reforming a written agreement.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hubble v. Somerville
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.