Mobile County v. Linch’s Empirical Analysis
1916
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2016
22 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 Cromwell v. County of Sac · Chambers v. Ringstaff · Pollard v. Maddox · Comer v. Bankhead · Cassells' Mill v. Strater Bros. Grain Co.
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The true rule of interpretation of contracts is to make- them speak the intention of the parties as at the time they were made. A corollary of this rule is that, where any doubt arises as to the true sense and meaning of the words themselves, or as to their application under the particular circumstances, their import may be shown by parol proof dehors the instrument itself.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Russell v. Garrett
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.