Robinson v. Korns’s Empirical Analysis
1913
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently July 2010 · most notably City of Caruthersville v. Huffman (1914), 224 Mo. App. 1025 - Binswanger v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. (1930)
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 28 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 Black River Lumber Co. v. Warner · Dougherty v. Dougherty · Tracy v. Union Iron Works Co. · Bunce v. Beck · Johnson v. Rasmus
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule that must be applied in these cases is that the mistake to be corrected must have been made in drawing the instrument and not in making the contract out of which it grew. [Parker v. Vanhoozer, 142 Mo. 621, 629 .] This mistake must he mutual, and not unilateral. That is to say, both must agree to what the instrument shall contain, and both must act in executing it upon the belief that it is so written. This rule is illustrated in Dougherty v. Dougherty, 204 Mo. 228, 238 , in which the scrivener acted for the grantees. This court said: His mistake was the mistake of the grantees, but not 'the mistake of the grantor, for whom he in no way acted, under the proof in this case. The mistake is purely unilateral and one which courts of equity do not reform. [Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. v. Sater, 44 Mo. App. l. c. 453; Meredith v. Holmes, 105 Mo. App. l. c. 352; Brocking v. Straat, 17 Mo. App. l. c. 305; Benn v. Pritchett, 163 Mo. l. c. 572; Miller v. Railroad, 162 Mo. l. c. 440-441.]’ ” (Emphasis ours.)”
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.