Blehm v. Ringering’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 3 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"* * * Parties may enter into two or more contemporaneous contracts relating to the same subject matter, and they may reduce to writing only one or more of the same, the oral contracts being regarded as collateral to and distinct from the written contract. In such an instance, the parol evidence rule does not bar proof of the oral agreement. 70 A.L.R. 752 , 756-57. In determining the intent between parties to make an integrated contract, the general rule has been adopted that the surrounding circumstances, as well as the written contract, may be considered. 70 A.L.R. 752 , 761. This court has now adopted the surrounding circumstances approach, and we no longer look only to the face of the written contract to determine the intent of the parties. `Whether the parties intended to integrate their agreement in the writing is a question of fact in each case.' * * *."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pio v. John B. Gilliland Construction, Inc. · Hatley v. Stafford

2. “[p]arties may agree that an annexed article shall be regarded as personalty”); 2 Tiffany, The Law of Real Property, § 612 (3d ed.1939 & Supp.2008-09) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dunellen, LLC v. Getty Properties Corp.

3. “* * * ORS 41.740 is the parol evidence rule”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hatley v. Stafford