Newton v. Roe’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 2010
14 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 Copeland v. Warren · Grider v. American Freehold Land Mortgage Co. · Hughes & Tidwell Supply Co. v. Carr · Rhodes v. Schofield · St. Clair Springs Hotel Co. v. Balcomb
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.
““We are unable to agree with [Mary’s] contention that the final decree rendered by the trial court constitutes a revision or amendment of a prior decree. The language of the instant decree certainly does not purport to alter a prior decree in any way and we find no basis in law or fact to so construe said decree. “It is also well established that, when a court of equity is presented with such facts as warrant, it is fully justified to regard substance rather than form and treat as done that which ought to have been done, if such is necessary to effectuate the true intent of the parties. Coley v. W.P. Brown & Sons Lumber Co., 251 Ala. 235 , 37 So.2d 125 [ (1948) ]; St. Clair Springs Hotel Co. v. Balcomb, 215 Ala. 12 , 108 So. 858 [ (1926) ]; Hughes & Tidwell Supply Co. v. Carr, 203 Ala. 469 , 83 So. 472 [ (1919) ]. In Copeland v. Warren, 214 Ala. 150 , 107 So. 94 [ (1926) ], the parties had attempted to execute a conveyance of property but the deed contained an incorrect description of the property to be conveyed. In holding the deed valid and allowing a reformation of the description in the deed the Court stated: “ ‘A court of equity treats as done that which ought to have been done to carry into effect the intention of the parties, and to that end will give effect to the transaction by fixing the status and rights of the parties as if the deed was executed on the date it should have been executed.’ [Emphasis supplied.] “Applying the above stated equitable principles to the p”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is . . . well established that, when a court of equity is presented with such facts as warrant, it is fully justified to regard substance rather than form and treat as done that which ought to have been done, if such is necessary to effectuate the true intent of the parties.”
2 later decisions 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.