Cooper v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 153 Ind. App. 245 - Hauck v. Second National Bank of Richmond · Mitchell v. Mitchell · DeHaan v. DeHaan · Bartrom v. Adjustment Bureau, Inc. · Ahuja v. Lynco Ltd. Medical Research
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The relations between two persons who have contracted in writing may be brought in issue collaterally in a suit between others. In such a case the parol evidence rule does not apply. The facts may be proved as they exist, regardless of the oral evidence varying the terms of any writing between the parties." White v. Woods, 183 Ind. 500 , 109 N.E. 761, 763 (1915) (quoting McKelvey on Evidence, § 280; Greenleaf, Evidence, § 279). Thus, the inadmissibility of parol evidence to vary the terms of a written instrument does not apply to a controversy between a third party and one of the parties to the instrument.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he parol evidence rule provides that extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to add to, vary, or explain the terms of a written instrument if the terms of the instrument are clear and unambiguous.”
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.