Graves v. Graves’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2020
8 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 The W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Wilkes · Sorrells v. Bailey Cattle Co. · Creighton v. Huggins
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen different instruments are executed at the same time, but are all parts of one transaction, it is the duty of the court to suppose such a priority in the execution of them as shall best effect the intention of the parties. The general rule is that in the absence of anything to indicate a • contrary intention, instruments executed at the same time, by the same parties, for the same purpose, and in the course of the same ^transaction, are, in the eye[s] of the law, one instrument, and will be read and construed together as if they were as much one in form as they are in substance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Parker v. Parker
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.