Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 75 Nev. 173 - Sims v. Grubb

Sims v. Grubb’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
February 1984
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently February 1984

18 state decisions

801959196019701980decided

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 Mitchill v. Lath · Dixon v. Miller · Gage v. Phillips · Peterson v. Abbe · Weisel v. Hagdahl Realty Co.

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

  1. ““The situation here is entirely different. In this case there was more than a mere note executed by the respondent. There was also a written agreement (escrow instructions) where the nature of the consideration for the note was expressly set forth. It is not contended that there was any failure of consideration so expressed, the respondent receiving not only the deed and bill of sale but also possession of the property for approximately ten months. She can no more contradict or vary the terms of that written agreement by oral testimony of other and additional consideration promised for the note than could the appellant have shown by parol evidence that respondent had agreed to pay him a greater sum for the property than that expressed in the written agreement. “The court erred in admitting such evidence of an oral agreement as its sole purpose was to vary the terms of the written contract of the parties.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “When parties reduce their contract to writing, all oral negotiations and agreements are merged in the writing, and the instrument must be treated as containing the whole contract, and parol proof is not admissible to alter its terms, or to show that, instead of being absolute, as it purports to be, it was in reality conditional, unless the party attacking the instrument can establish fraud or mistake in its execution.”
    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.