Rush v. Champlin Refining Company’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A deed should be interpreted and the meaning of the parties thereto ascertained in the same manner as other written contracts. Jennings v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, 179 Okl. 561 , 66 P.2d 1069 . The language of the contract, if clear and explicit and free from ambiguity, governs the interpretation, 15 O.S.1951 § 154,; and when the contract is reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible. 15 O.S.1951 § 155. Unless the instrument is ambiguous,' it is the duty of the court to interpret it and parol evidence is not competent to explain it or to vary its terms. Jennings v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, supra. When a deed possesses an element of ambiguity or uncertainty, however, parol evidence, the admissions of the parties and other extraneous circumstances may be proved to ascertain its true meaning. This rule is applicable, however, only when the uncertainty or ambiguity is intrinsic and is shown on the face of the instrument. Jennings v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, supra, Wilson v. Olsen, 167 Okl. 527 , 30 P.2d 710 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ivey v. Wood