Baker v. Helms’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 2009
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 Murphy v. Osborne · Stephens v. Keener · Williams v. Shaver · May v. Alsobrook · Viesey v. Wooten
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A mere preponderance of the evidence is not sufficient to establish an alleged unperformed agreement on the part of the grantee in a deed to support the grantor where that consideration is not expressed in the deed. Viesey v. Wooten, 220 Ark. 962 , 251 S.W. 2d 593 ; Hammett v. Cannon, 226 Ark. 300 , 289 S.W. 2d 683 . Evidence to engraft upon a deed a consideration other than that expressed therein must be clear, cogent, and convincing. May v. Alsobrook, 221 Ark. 293 , 253 S.W. 2d 29 . Evidence to justify the cancellation in equity of a deed properly executed and acknowledged must also be something more than a mere preponderance. It must be clear, strong and conclusive, or clear, cogent and convincing, or clear, unequivocal and decisive. (Citing cases.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Prentice v. Cox
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.