Bullock v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Rudd-Melikian, Inc. v. Merritt (1960), Bond Bros. v. Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer Dist. (1948)
5 federal appellate · 36 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 Castleman-Blakemore Co. v. Pickrell & Craig Co. · Challinor v. Axton · Honaker v. Crutchfield · Lexington & Eastern Railway Co. v. Lyons · Hornek Brothers v. Strubel, by Next Friend
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In ascertaining their intentions, the chief and most satisfactory index is found in the circumstances whether or not the particular element of the alleged extrinsic negotiations is dealt with in the writing. ‘If it is mentioned, covered or dealt with in the writing, then presumably the writing was meant to represent all of the transaction on that element; if it is not, then probably the writing was not intended to embody that element of the negotiation. This test is the one used by the most careful judges, and is in contrast with the looser and incorrect inquiry whether the alleged extrinsic negotiation contradicts the terms of the writing.’ Wig-more on Evidence, vol. 4, § 2430. * * * If it is incomplete on its face, parol evidence is admissible to aid in establishing their intention [citing cases].””
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.