Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 317 MASS 559 - Kerwin v. Donaghy

Kerwin v. Donaghy’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
5
states following
October 2010
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 4 district · 54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently October 2010 · most notably Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, Successor of the Chase National Bank of the City of New York, Trustee and Alleged Transferee of Marie Elizabeth Moran, the Chase Manhattan Bank, Sucessor of the Chase National Bank of the City of New York, Trustee and Alleged Transferee of Marie Elizabeth Moran v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1958), Bongaards v. Millen (2003)

3 federal appellate · 4 district · 54 state decisions

21019451950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Bates v. Southgate · Newman v. Dore · National Shawmut Bank v. Joy · Higgs v. De Maziroff · Eaton v. Eaton

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

  1. “‘Under the parol evidence rule, if the manifestation of intention of the settlor is integrated in a writing, that is, if a written instrument is adopted by him as the complete expression of his intention, extrinsic evidence, in the absence of fraud, duress, mistake or other ground for reformation or rescission, is not admissible to contradict or vary it.’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Though often stated in terms of the admissibility of evidence, the so-called 'paroi evidence rule’ is really a rule of substantive law. Extrinsic evidence, even though admitted, cannot control the words of a document that purports to express the whole transaction.””
    1 later decision 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.