Corbin v. Moser’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
2 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2010 · most notably Heyen v. Hartnett (1984), Cosgrove v. Young (1981)
2 district · 25 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 Shepard v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance · Bellport v. Harrison · Rathbun v. Williams · Hickey v. Dirks · Davis v. Hurst
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . If the judge directs that the form of the judgment is to be settled by a journal entry or other document, it shall be prepared in accordance with the directions of the judge who shall then sign the same and cause it to be filed with the clerk. Such filing shall constitute the entry of the judgment, and it shall not be effective before such filing. . . .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[Wjhere an ambiguity exists so that a deed is capable of two possible constructions the one most favorable to the grantee will be selected. We find the rule stated in 16 Am. Jur., Deeds, § 165, p. 530, as follows: “ ‘The general rule is well settled that if there is any ambiguity in a deed so that it is capable of two possible constructions, one of which will be more favorable to the grantee, the other of which will be more favorable to the grantor, that method of construction which will be more favorable to the grantee will be selected and the deed will be construed against the grantor. All doubts, therefore, are to be resolved against the grantor. This rule is statutory in some jurisdictions. The rule is predicated upon the reasoning that since a grant is expressed in words of the grantor’s own selection, it is, prima facie, an expression of his intention, and he is therefore chargeable with the language used. If, therefore, the deed can inure in different ways, the grantee, it is said, may take it in such way as will be most to his advantage.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It will be noted that the only instance in which the clerk enters judgment without the direction of the trial judge is on a jury verdict. Otherwise, the judge is to direct the clerk as to the judgment to be entered. The judgment cannot be entered until the judge directs, and the judgment is. not effective until entered on the appearance docket.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.