Fenter v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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

1. ““While the general rule is well established that parol evidence is not admissible to restrict, enlarge, or contradict the terms of a written contract where there is no ambiguity in its meaning, yet, when facts are alleged showing the existence of fraud, accident, or mistake, or that the contract was entered into for the ‘furtherance of objects forbidden by law, whether it be by statute, or by an express rule of the common law, or by the general policy of the law,’ the rule has no application.” Fenter v. Robinson (Tex. Civ. App.) 230 S. W. 844 ; Caddell v. Watkins Medical Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 227 S. W. 226 ; Talbot & Son v. Martindale (Tex. Civ. App.) 211 S. W. 302 ; Smith v. Bowen, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 222 , 100 S. W. 796 ; W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 231 S. W. 797 ; Watkins Medical Co. v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.) 162 S. W. 394 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Watson