1999 Pa. Super. 108 - Espenshade v. Espenshade’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2015
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 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 Simeone v. Simeone · 337 Pa. Super. 58 - Ingrassia Const. Co., Inc. v. Walsh · Kay v. Kay · Commonwealth v. Powell · 425 Pa. Super. 228 - Laudig v. Laudig
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although a -writing may appear to be complete on its face, parol evidence is admissible to vary the contents of the writing when there is proof that the writing does not reflect the true agreement of the parties. For example, if the terms of the contract are ambiguous, parol evidence may be introduced to aid in the interpretation of the agreement. ... Likewise, if fraud, accident or mistake is alleged, extrinsic evidence is admissible to vary or contradict the terms of the written agreement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.