Kindley v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 1992 · most notably Peter Kiewit Sons' Company v. Summit Construction Company and General Insurance Company of America, Summit Construction Company and General Insurance Company of America v. Peter Kiewit Sons' Company, General Insurance Company of America v. Peter Kiewit Sons' Company (1969), Hinkle v. Hargens (1957)
6 federal appellate · 34 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 Moncur v. Jones · Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Swier · Janssen v. Tusha · Western Material Co. v. Deltener · Pringle v. Canfield
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`* * * where a contract which has been reduced to writing and executed by the parties is complete, clear, and unambiguous in its terms * * * the contract, in the absence of fraud, mistake, or accident, cannot be changed or modified by parol or extrinsic evidence * * *.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The property is leased by the defendant to the plaintiff upon a monthly rental basis, and the agreement specifically provides that at the expiration of the lease plaintiff shall return to the defendant “the property in as good a condition as when received ... . ” The basis of respondent’s claim is that the oral stipulations provide title to the airplane is to vest in him upon the completion of the rental payments. . . . [T]his claim is specifically refuted by the writing ... The writing having provided for the disposition of the airplane upon the completion of the rental payments it would seem also that we are bound to exclude the oral negotiations relating to this subject ...”
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.