Tees v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1988
1 federal appellate · 4 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 John O'Brien Lumber Co. v. Wilkinson · Washburn v. Dosch · Kipp v. Laun · Beers v. Atlas Assurance Co. · Hampton Plains Realty Co. v. Cohen
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Parol evidence is admissible to alter the terms of a written instrument only when: (1) It does not contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of a valid written agreement, or (2) fraud, mistake, or accident are shown to be present. [Cases and authorities cited.] The written document pertaining to obligations assumed by each of the parties being set out with great detail and exactness, and being signed by both parties, is convincing that the effort and intention was to place within the four corners of the writing all that needed to be expressed in order to declare the minds of the contracting parties ... to cover the whole field in the written contract. [Case cited.]” Tees v. Lee (1940), 234 Wis. 607, 610 , 291 N. W. 792 .”
2 later decisions 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.