Nelson v. Daugherty’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 2024
9 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 · Harrison v. Eaves · Harrell v. Nash · Crabb v. Chisum · Fabbro v. Reese
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Evidence to sustain a judgment reforming a contract must be clear, unequivo cal, and decisive, but this does not mean that it must be uncontradicted; and the judgment of the trial court in such an action, where the evidence is conflicting, should be given weight, and should be affirmed on appeal, unless the appellate court is satisfied that the standard of proof required has not been met and the conclusion reached is wrong.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“ordinarily the statute of limitations does not begin to run against an equitable right to reform a deed, on account of mutual mistake as to its legal effect, before such effect is questioned or disputed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(A)n undivided ½ interest in the oil, gas and other minerals and mineral rights”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. SCOTT v. PETERS
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.