Pittman v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1999
3 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 Canter v. Koehring Company · Gulf States Finance Corp. v. Airline Auto Sales Inc. · Scott v. Behrman · 313 So. 2d 644 - Bank of Coushatta v. Evans · 262 So. 2d 591 - Bates v. Stewart
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It may not be contended for example, that, as between the parties to an instrument parol evidence is incompetent to show fraud, mistake, illegality, want or failure of consideration, to explain an ambiguity when such explanation is not inconsistent with the written terms, or to show that the writing is only a part of an entire oral contract between the parties.” (Emphasis part of original text)”
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.