Chiles v. Mann & Mann’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2005
8 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 Bridgman v. Drilling · Beal & Doyle Dry Goods Co. v. Barton · Mooney v. Tyler · Bluff City Lumber Co. v. Hilson · First National Bank v. J. H. Snyder Manufacturing Co.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"There are several reasons why the Court was correct in this ruling. The first relates to the rules of pleading: i.e., under a general denial testimony of confession and avoidance cannot be heard such as here: the defendant confesses his act of signing the note but seeks to avoid the effect by claiming he signed as an officer of a corporation. Some of our cases showing the limited evidence that may be offered under a general denial are: Grier v. Yutterman, 102 Ark. 433 , 145 S.W. 194 ; and Shirk v. Williamson, 50 Ark. 562 , 9 S.W. 307 . Our cases are in accord with the general rules as regards pleadings. In 41 Am. Jur. 396 , `Pleadings' § 149, the text reads: `Like the general issue, the general denial operates as a denial of every material allegation of the complaint as fully as if it had been specifically and separately denied .... It covers defenses which go to destroy the plaintiff's cause of action, but not those which are grounded on new matter or matters in avoidance or other defense that must be specially pleaded. ` (emphasis supplied.) And in § 155 of the same text the general holdings are summarized: `Since the plaintiff must apprise the defendant in the beginning as to what he relies upon for a recovery, it is only right that the defendant should be required also to inform the plaintiff of any special or affirmative defenses he expects to make by pleading the facts constituting such defenses....'"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Chiles Planting Company, By: E.B. Chiles, Jr.”
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.