Hubert v. Joslin’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
November 1948
most recently cited
1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 22 Ala. App. 39 - Craven v. State · Smith v. Werkheiser · Baer & Co. v. Mobile Cooperage & Box Mfg. Co. · Busch v. Wilcox · J. B. Millet Co. v. Andrews
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is ordinarily no reason to insert such a clause in a contract unless the party who insists upon it is prompted to do so by a consciousness he has successfully perpetrated a fraud upon the opposite party. Such a clause is ineffective as a defense against fraud. Peck v. Jenison, 99 Mich. 326 ; J. B. Millet Co. v. Andrews, 175 Mich. 350 ; J. B. Colt Co. v. Reade, 221 Mich. 92 ; Plate v. Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co., 229 Mich. 482 ; Fignar v. Schreiber, 255 Mich. 661 ; Gloeser v. Moore, 284 Mich. 106 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mesh v. Citrin
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.