Boyd Estate’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 41 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a)n attachment execution works an assignment to the plaintiff of the debt due the defendant from the garnishee.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Shaw v. Botens · Jamison v. Miracle Mile Rambler, Inc.

2. “[P]arol evidence is admissible to explain and supplement a written agreement where such evidence clearly shows that the writing in question was not intended to and did not properly state the entire agreement between the parties. [In re ] Boyd’s Estate, [ 394 Pa. 225 , 146 A.2d 816 (1958) ]. The parol evidence rule has never barred the introduction of clear, precise, and convincing evidence to show that the party who seeks to enforce the written agreement according to its tenor has admitted and acknowledged that the agreement as written did not express what the parties intended and that what the parties intended was omitted from the agreement by mistake or accident.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Haywood v. University of Pittsburgh · 330 Pa. Super. 333 - Cohn v. McGurk

3. ““* * * if written agreement was intended by the parties to encompass the matter in dispute, then evidence of a contrary nature based upon an oral agreement at the time of the execution of the written agreement was barred in the absence of fraud, accident or mistake * * * ” (394 Pa. at pages 232, 233, 146 A.2d at page 820 ).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sodexomagic, LLC v. Drexel Univ. · 181 F. Supp. 181 - Taxin v. Food Fair Stores, Inc.