Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 244 S.C. 206 - Proffitt v. Sitton

Proffitt v. Sitton’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
September 2012
most recently cited

3 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2012

3 district · 10 state decisions

60196419701980199020002010decided

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 Bruce v. Blalock · Quinn v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · Garrett Ex Rel. Garrett v. Pilot Life Insurance · Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Joyce · Kingman v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

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

  1. “The purpose of all rules of construction is to ascertain the intention of the parties to the contract. The subject matter of the contract and the purpose of its exception are material to the ascertainment of the intention of the parties and the meaning of the terms they use. In construing the contract the Court will ascertain the intention of the parties, and to that end will, as far as possible, determine the situation of the parties, as well as the purposes had in view at the time the contract was made. All contracts should receive a sensible and reasonable construction, and not such a one as will lead to absurd consequences or unjust results.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Where the terms of a written instrument are unambiguous, clear and explicit, extrinsic evidence of statements of any of the parties to it, made contemporaneously with or prior to its execution, is inadmissible to contradict, add to, subtract from, vary or explain its terms, in the ab sence of fraud, accident or mistake in its procurement.””
    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.