McFarland v. Shaw’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 19 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * However, the rule has its exceptions. It is well recognized or established that there are exceptions to the general rule which exclude parol evidence to explain written instruments, and they apply to negotiable papers as well as to other contracts. When the issue of fraud, surety, ambiguity, or want of consideration is raised, as between the original parties and those standing in the shoes of such parties or against those taking with notice, parol testimony is admissible to show the true facts. When properly presented by the pleadings and the evidence, the rule respecting the admissibility of extrinsic evidence is stated in 3 R.C.L. pp. 869 and 870, in the following language: “ ‘Many of the exceptions to the parol evidence rule are quite as well settled as the general rule and require only a mere statement. It may not be contended for example, that, as between the parties to an, instrument parol evidence is incompetent to show fraud, mistake, illegality, want or failure of consideration, to explain an ambiguity when such explanation is not inconsistent with, the written terms, or to show that the writing is only a part of an entire oral contract between the parties, or that its obligation has been fully discharged by an oral collateral agreement. So in a controversy between the parties or others charged with notice proof may be made of a collateral agreement, which was the consideration for the instrument, or which postpones the legal operation of the writing until th”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Young v. Gardner · Rubin v. Adams

2. “Our Supreme Court has established a well-settled rule that heirs, devisees or legatees who receive property belonging to an estate, against which an unpaid claim exists, do not thereby become personally liable to the claimant for the value of the property so received; the remedy being to enforce the statutory lien against the property in their hands. It is also equally well settled that, if the heirs, devisees, or legatees have disposed of the property or so changed its form as to render it impossible of identification, a personal judgment or recovery may be had of them for its value. Blinn v. W. J. McDonald, 92 Tex. 604 , 46 S.W. 787 , 48 S.W. 571 , 50 S.W. 931 ; Smith v. Patton (Tex.Com.App.) 241 S.W. 109, 117; Faulkner v. Reed (Tex.Com.App.) 241 S.W. 1002 ; Hughes v. Hughes (Tex.Civ.App.) 264 S.W. 579 . (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Potts v. W. Q. Richards Memorial Hospital

3. “. whenever a person dies intestate, all of his estate shall vest immediately in his heirs at law, but . shall still be liable and subject in their hands to the payment of the debts of the intestate; .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Potts v. W. Q. Richards Memorial Hospital