Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 50 MICH 119 - Jacobs v. Miller

Jacobs v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

1883

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
January 2012
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2012 · most notably Loring v. Palmer (1886), Dickey v. Converse (1898)

3 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

7018831890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Cowell v. Springs Co. · Scholey v. Rew · Morrison v. Bowman · Sinclair v. Jackson ex dem. Field · Caulfield v. . Sullivan

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

  1. ““By the principles of the common law, the legal effect due to the plain words of a deed cannot be contradicted by parties or privies in any collateral matter by parol evidence. The terms must stand and receive their just legal significance. 2 Whart. Ev. §§ 1050, 1054, and cases; Jackson v. Foster, 12 Johns. 488 ; Jackson v. Roberts’ Ex’r, 11 Wend. 422 . The name of the grantee is part of the deed (2 Rolle, Abr. 43); and where a deed is made to several individuals, without designating in what proportions they shall hold, they will take in equal proportions, precisely as though it had been detailed at length in the deed (Campau v. Campau, 44 Mich. 31 [ 5 N. W. 1062 ]; Treadwell v. Bulkley, 4 Day, 395 [ 4 Am. Dec. 225 ]), and no parol proof can be admitted to give the deed a different effect than such as the words in it legitimately import (Treadwell v. Bulkley, supra; Morse v. Shattuck, 4 N. H. 229 [ 17 Am. Dec. 419 ]; Gully v. Grubbs, 1 J. J. Marsh. 387-390; 1 Cow. & H. Notes, 217, 1428 et seq., 1442, 1444). The case before us is governed by the same principle.””
    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.