Linn v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 19 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * * The rule in regard to the exclusion of parol evidence to affect a written instrument and the reasons for the rule are stated by Greenleaf in section 275, as follows: “ ‘When parties have deliberately put their engagements into writing in such terms as import a legal obligation, without any uncertainty as to the object or extent of such engagements, it is conclusively presumed that the whole engagement of the parties and the extent and manner of their undertaking was reduced to writing, and all oral testimony of a previous colloquium between the parties or of conversation or declarations at the time when it was completed or afterwards — as it would tend in many instances to substitute a new and different contract for the one which was really agreed upon, to the prejudice, possibly, of one of the parties — is rejected. In other words, as the rule is now more briefly expressed, “Parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the extent of a valid written instrument.” ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dolch v. Garrard Publishing Company

2. ““It is hereby agreed by and between James B. Muir and Edwin M. Clark, both of the city of Chicago, that whereas, on January 4, 1905, James B. Muir bought and took title in his name to all that part of, [here follows description of the property,] and paid for the above' described property the sum of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) ; it is understood between the parties hereto that said above described property was bought for the joint benefit and account of James B. Muir and Edwin M. Clark, and that after the said James B. Muir receives all moneys advanced by him for the purchase of said property, together with taxes on same and interest at six per cent per annum, the net profits from the sale of said property shall be divided equally between the parties hereto. James B. Muir, Edwin M. Clark.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clark v. Muir

3. ““ ‘It is to be observed that the rule is directed only against the admission of any other evidence of the language employed by the parties in making the contract than that which is furnished by the writing itself. The writing, it is true, may be read by the light of surrounding circumstances in order more perfectly to understand the intent and meaning of the parties, but as they have constituted the writing to be the only outward and visible expression of their meaning, no other words are to be added to it or substituted in its stead.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dolch v. Garrard Publishing Company