Woods v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It was only necessary that appellee show by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant had notice of such facts and circumstances as would put a man of ordinary intelligence and prudence on inquiry which, if diligently pursued, would lead to knowledge of his rights. Grayson v. Hughes, 166 Ark. 173 , 265 S.W. 836 ; Valley Planing Mill Co. v. Lena Lumber Co., 168 Ark. 1133 , 272 S.W. 860 . Such proof may be made by circumstantial evidence. Krow & Neumann v. Bernard, 152 Ark. 99 , 238 S.W. 19 . Whatever is notice enough to excite attention, put a party on guard and call for inquiry is notice of everything to which the inquiry might lead, and whenever one has sufficient information to lead him to a fact he shall be deemed conversant with it. Henderson v. Ozan Lumber Co., 216 Ark. 39 , 224 S.W. 2d 30 ; Millman Lumber Co. v. Bryant, 213 Ark. 277 , 209 S.W. 2d 878 . See also Holloway v. Eagle, 135 Ark. 206 , 205 S.W. 113 ; Love v. Bryson, 57 Ark. 589 , 22 S.W. 341 ; Reynolds v. Moseley, 32 F. 2d 979 (8th Cir. 1929). We find no error in this respect.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bowen v. Perryman