Maloy v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2024
14 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 Hudson v. Smith · Harrell v. Nash · Oklahoma City Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Clifton · Whitehead v. Bunch · Skinner Et Ux. v. Scott Et Ux.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he rationale of the rule that the statute does not run against one in possession is that if one is asserting peaceable dominion over and obtaining the benefit from that which he claims he acquired by the conveyance in question, he is entitled to assume that the other party to the instrument is acquiescing in his claim.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * And the five-year statute would also be applicable if the right to recover is based upon inequitable conduct which falls short of fraud. * * *»”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Whether the fraud, inequitable conduct or mistake should have been discovered at the time the instrument was signed will usually depend upon the particular cireuam-stances. We do not think it would run from date of execution in every case because if it can be said that it should have been discovered at that time, there would be no reason to excuse the party's negli-genee in the first instance. It would be as well to say that a party who signs an instrument without reading it is barred from obtaining relief at any time because his injury is a result of his own negligence. But fraud or inequitable conduct on one side excuses negligence on the other side. However, even if it is assumed in the instant case the statute did not commence to run at the time defendants executed the deed, it is clear that it did commence when they were put on notice that plaintiff and/or her predecessors were claiming that defendants did not reserve what they were claiming.”
2 later decisions 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.