Good v. Cohlmia’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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In urging, under their first proposition of error, that plaintiffs’ action is barred by limitations, defendants rely on Hoskins v. Stites, 182 Okl. 455 , 78 P.2d 413 , and Mundy v. Dependent School District No. 32, Okl., 272 P.2d 447 , for the applicability of the five-year period prescribed by Tit. 12 O.S.1951 § 95(6); and point to the fact that the action was ‘brought more than 30 years’ after the execution and delivery of the deed sought to be reformed, and to the undisputed testimony of the plaintiff, Frank Cohlmia, that he knew at the time the instrument of conveyance was delivered to him in November, 1926, that it described the interest therein conveyed as ‘One-sixteenth’, rather than ‘One-half.’ Defense counsel argue that this latter testimony ‘established that plaintiffs were aware of the purported error from the very day the deed was executed. * * * ’, but failed to take any action concerning it until many more than five years thereafter. We think this statement indicates misapprehension of the testimony referred to. While it cannot be denied that from the time the language sought to be reformed was placed in the deed in question, both parties thereto knew that it was there, yet, as hereinbefore shown, it was only a short time before they commenced this action, that plaintiffs learned that they (and Good, too) were mistaken in its legal effect — in believing that, by the described transaction, they had obtained an undivided one-half, rather than a one-sixteenth inte”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nelson v. Daugherty