Eckel v. Adair’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Chamberlin v. Chamberlin (1986), Hadnot v. Shaw (1992)
47 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 Hamid v. Sew Original · Keel v. Titan Construction Corp. · Cleary Petroleum Corp. v. Harrison · Lawrence v. Cleveland County Home Loan Authority · McCullough v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained” and it is typed, the court construed the agreement in guarantors' favor. It applied the canon of construction that typed provisions control over those of a printed form. See supra note 1 for the text of the guaranty agreement. We reject the court of appeals' construction. See our discussion infra Section III. Clause two contains a term similar to the clause four provision described previously. The parties agree that the similar provision is inapplicable here and would have applied only if the Bank had proceeded solely against the guarantors. 8 . The appellate court instructed that on remand evidence be taken of the property’s fair market value. The guarantors contend that subsequent to this appeal the trial court entered a "deficiency judgment” against the principal, and they seek to make that “judgment” a part of the appellate record. Bank opposes their motion. "This court will not consider as part of the appellate record any written or printed instrument that was not properly included in 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.