Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2010 UTAPP 137 - Wilson v. Johnson

Wilson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Daines v. Vincent · R.T. Nielson Co. v. Cook · Nunley v. Westates Casing Services, Inc. · Golden Key Realty, Inc. v. Mantas · Glenn v. Reese

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A contractual term or provision is ambiguous if it is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation because of uncertain meanings of terms, missing terms, or other facial deficiencies.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[blefore the [trial] court may consider extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent ... it must first conclude that the contract is facially ambiguous.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[Flacial ambiguity with regard to the language of the contract ... is a question of law, while the intent of the parties is a question of fact.”
    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.