496 So. 2d 723 - Powell v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The general rule in Alabama is that a court may exercise its equitable powers to reform a deed to make it conform to the intention of the parties. Clemons v. Mallett , 445 So.2d 276 (Ala. 1984); Pinson v. Veach , 388 So.2d 964 (Ala. 1980); Clipper v. Gordon , 253 Ala. 428 , 44 So.2d 576 (1950). One ground for reformation of a written instrument is mutuality of mistake. Clemons v. Mallett , supra; Original Church of God, Inc. v. Perkins , 292 Ala. 283 , 293 So.2d 292 (1974). Regarding mutuality of mistake, this Court in Palmer v. Palmer , 390 So.2d 1050 , 1053 (Ala. 1980), said: 'Although a deed in terms expresses the intention of the parties, if there is a material mistake as to the property to which those terms apply, such as to its identity, situation, boundaries, title, amount, value, and the like, a court of equity may grant appropriate relief.' "”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fadalla v. Fadalla · Brewer v. Stanley

2. “" Popwell v. Greene , 465 So.2d 384 (Ala. 1985) . . . recognizes that `extrinsic evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous oral or written agreements between a grantor and grantee is generally inadmissible to vary, change, contradict, or defeat the legal operation of a deed.' 465 So.2d at 386 . However, in Floyd v. Andress , 246 Ala. 301 , 20 So.2d 331 (1944), a case cited in Popwell , supra, the Court recognized that an action to reform a deed to speak the true intention of the parties is outside the operation of the rule that parol evidence is not admissible to vary the terms of a valid legal instrument."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 892 So. 2d 384 - Smith v. Smith

3. ““The standard applicable to reformation cases is that the decision of a trial judge who heard ore tenus evidence will not be overturned on appeal if it is supported by competent evidence and is not manifestly unjust or plainly and palpably erroneous. Clemons v. Mallett, supra; Dalrymple v. White, 402 So.2d 968 (Ala.1981).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brewer v. Stanley