43 Va. App. 279 - Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
32 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 23 Va. App. 690 - O'Loughlin v. O'Loughlin · 4 Va. App. 326 - Graves v. Graves · 40 Va. App. 255 - Congdon v. Congdon · Eure v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. · Heyman Cohen & Sons, Inc. v. M. Lurie Woolen Co.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Absent the necessity to consider extrinsic evidence, ‘appellate courts review trial court interpretations of contractual texts de novo because we have an equal opportunity to consider the words within the four corners of the disputed provision.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“First, if no patent or latent ambiguities exist, a court should enforce the plain meaning of the contractual language without resort to extrinsic evidence. Second, if an ambiguity exists, a court should still enforce the contract if the real meaning of the ambiguous provision can be discerned from extrinsic evidence. Third, if an ambiguity renders the alleged agreement too indefinite even after the consideration of extrinsic evidence of the court to determine the parties’ intent, the contract cannot be enforced due to the absence of any discernable meeting of the minds.”
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.