Dooley v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1973
1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
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 55 Tex. Civ. App. 249 - Allen v. Herrick Hardware Company · Barcus v. J. I. Case Threshing MacH. Co. · Rahe v. Yett · Nalle v. Gates · Shearon v. Henderson
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The general rule is elementary that parol evidence is not admissible to vary or contradict the terms of a written instrument, and that such rule applies to bills and notes. But it is likewise well settled that a parol agreement mide at the time of the execution and delivery of a written instrument, or afterwards, to apply certain credits as payment thereon, or to show payments other than those indorsed on the instrument, is enforceable and may be shown by parol. Such matters relate to the performance of the contract, and do not vary nor contradict it.””
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.