Wehner v. Schroeder’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently March 2012
18 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 Adams v. Little Missouri Minerals Association · Ell v. Ell · Lippire v. Eckel · Frandson v. Casey · Ives v. Hanson
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" Revision of contract for fraud or mistake. When, through fraud or mutual mistake of the parties, or a mistake of one party which the other at the time knew or suspected, a written contract does not truly express the intention of the parties, it may be revised on the application of a party aggrieved so as to express that intention so far as it can be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons in good faith and for value."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The burden of proof rests on the party who seeks reformation to prove that the written instrument does not fully or truly state the agreement that the parties intended to make_ Further, ... “[P]arol evidence of an alleged mutual mistake as a basis for the modification of a written instrument must be clear, satisfactory, specific and convincing, and a court of equity will not grant the high remedy of reformation even upon a mere preponderance of the evidence, but only upon the certainty of error....” Each case involving the reformation of a contract on grounds of fraud or mutual mistake must be determined upon its own particular facts and circumstances. In considering whether or not a mutual mistake exists, the court can properly look into the surrounding circumstances and take into consideration all facts which disclose the intention of the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““1. The party making the admission by his declaration or conduct was appraised of the true state of his own title; "2. That he made the admission with the express intention to deceive or with such careless and culpable negligence as to amount to constructive fraud; “3. The other party was not only destitute of all knowledge of the true state of the title, but of the means of acquiring such knowledge; "4. That he relied directly upon such admission and will be injured by allowing its truth to be disproved;””
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.