Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 212 N.W.2d 461 - Egan v. Egan

Egan v. Egan’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
February 1997
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 1997

21 state decisions

100197319801990decided

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 Hamilton v. Wosepka · Goolsby v. Derby · State v. Miller · Pappas v. Hauser · Schupbach v. Schuknecht

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.

  1. ““The parol evidence rule forbids use of extrinsic evidence to vary, add to, or subtract from a written agreement. Pappas v. Hauser, 197 N.W.2d 607, 611 (Iowa 1972). But the rule does not come into play until by interpretation the meaning of the writing is ascertained, and, as an aid to interpretation, extrinsic evidence is admissible which sheds light on the situation of the parties, antecedent negotiations, attendant circumstances, and the objects the parties were striving to attain. Hamilton v. Wosepka, 261 Iowa 299, 306 , 154 N.W.2d 164, 168 (1967). * * *.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[W]e believe it is ordinarily better practice for a judge not to sit as a trier of fact when his [her] impartiality has in good faith been questioned....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the last pleading directed to that issue.”
    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.