Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 244 Ga. 280 - Cox v. Smith

Cox v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2018

12 state decisions

6019791980199020002010decided

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 Lewis v. Foy · DeLong v. Cobb · McCullough v. Kirby · Beckwith v. Peterson · Long v. Walls

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

  1. “A 'mutual mistake' in an action for reformation means one in which both parties had agreed on the terms of the contract, but by mistake of the scrivener the true terms of the agreement were not set forth.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “by clear, unequivocal and decisive evidence that both [parties to the security deed] made a mutual mistake in preparation of the instrument and that the [bank] was not so negligent in executing the instrument or discovering any mistake appearing therein as to be estopped to ask for reformation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “clear, unequivocal, and decisive evidence”
    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.