Levin v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably Jones v. Federal Paper Board Co. (1969), State Ex Rel. Bowman v. Wooleyhan Transport Co. (1949)
5 federal appellate · 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 Rosenthal v. Heft · Coca-Cola Bottling Works, Inc. v. Catron · Salisbury Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Lowe · Clautice v. Murphy · Rinehart v. Risling
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No principle of law is more firmly settled than that which excludes parol evidence from being used either at law or in equity for the purpose of contradicting, adding to, subtracting from, or varying the terms of a deed, or controlling its legal operation and effect, except where it is impeached for fraud, or where it is-sought to be reformed upon the allegations of fraud, accident or mistake. It would be useless to cite the numerous instances in which our predecessors have enforced this doctrine, and held that all oral negotiations or stipulations between the parties preceding or accompanying the execution of a written instrument, are to be regarded as merged in it, and the latter treated as the exclusive medium of ascertaining the agreement by which the contracting parties bound themselves.” Id. at 581 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Canatella v. Davis““If a party, after conveying by solemn deed the whole of his farm for a specified sum of money which has been paid to him, can set up an antecedent or accompanying parol contract like the present, contradicting the deed both as to price and quantity, there would be very little room for the operation of the rule, and very little security or safety in such instruments, or in titles held under them.” Id. at 583 . (Emphasis in original.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Canatella v. Davis
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.