Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 246 Mich. 255 - Sponseller v. Kimball

Sponseller v. Kimball’s Empirical Analysis

1929

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
3
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 2016

4 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

501929193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Horvath v. National Mortgage Co. · Sanborn v. Sanborn · Weidner v. Northway Motor & Manfg. Co. · Warren v. Federal Life Insurance · Smith v. Osborn

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. “The stability of written instruments demands that a person who executes one shall know its contents or be chargeable with such knowledge. If he cannot read, he should have a reliable person read it to him. His failure to do so is negligence which estops him from voiding the instrument on the ground that he was ignorant of its contents, in the absence of circumstances fairly excusing his failure to inform himself. 6 R.C.L. pp. 624, 625; Warren v. Federal Life Ins. Co., 198 Mich. 342 [ 164 N.W. 449 ]: Weidner v. Northway Motor, etc., Co., 205 Mich. 583 [ 172 N.W. 574 ].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “executed not merely one but four instruments, all of which were read to her and whose purpose she understood.”
    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.