Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 76 state decisions

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

1. “from the language of the deed itself when its terms are unambiguous. However, there are instances in which consideration should be given to the instruments made contemporaneously therewith, the circumstances attending the execution of the deed, and to the situation of the parties at the time.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 195 N.C. App. 459 - DEF OF HICKORY, LLC v. Honeycutt · 255 N.C. App. 356 - Rutledge v. Feher

2. ““ ‘A conveyance of land must be in writing and comply with certain formalities, and its principal function is to evidence the transfer of a particular interest in land. ... an agreement which contradicts express provisions of the deed . . . which “would change the essential nature” of a deed absolute, may not be shown.’ Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, Sec. 255, pp. 512 and 514. The Parol Evidence Rule applies in litigation involving the construction of the nature and quality of estates conveyed by deed. Heaton v. Kilpatrick, 195 N.C. 708 , 143 S.E. 644 ; Flynt v. Conrad, 61 N.C. 190 . A conveyance cannot be contradicted by a parol agreement, nor, in the absence of proof of fraud, mistake, or undue influence, can a deed solemnly executed and proven be set aside by parol testimony. Walters v. Walters, 172 N.C. 328 , 90 S.E. 304 ; Mfg. Co. v. Mfg. Co., 161 N.C. 430 , 77 S.E. 233 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Terrell v. Terrell

3. ““The party asking for relief by reformation of a deed or written instrument, must allege and prove, first, that a material stipulation, as alleged, was agreed upon by the parties, to be incorporated in the deed or instrument as written, and second, that such stipulation was omitted from the deed or instrument as written, by mistake, either of both parties, or of one party, induced by the fraud of the other, or by the mistake of the draughtsman. Equity will give relief by reformation only when a mistake has been made, and the deed or written instrument because of the mistake does not express the true intent of both parties. The mistake of one party to the deed, or instrument, alone, not induced by the fraud of the other, affords no ground for relief by reformation.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Matthews v. Shamrock Van Lines, Inc.