Hanes v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 2001
2 federal appellate · 17 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.
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"To permit a party, when sued on a written contract, to admit that he signed it but to deny that it expresses the agreement he made or to allow him to admit that he signed it but did not read it or know its stipulations would absolutely destroy the value of all contracts. The purpose of the rule is to give stability to written agreements and to remove the temptation and possibility of perjury, which would be afforded if parol evidence were admissible."”
3 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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““A written contract should be exclusive evidence of the agreement made and contained therein so far as it deals with all the subject-matter of the contract, unless such contract is procured through fraud, either actual or constructive, undue influence, restraint, deception, in a dishonest manner, or by false representations which induce the signing of the contract, or unless there is a mutual mistake of law by both parties, a misapprehension of the law by one party of which the other party was aware at the time of making the contract, which was not rectified, or some other illegal manner.” Hanes v. Mitchell, 78 N.D. 341 , 49 N.W.2d 606, 608-609 (1951), quoting Gilbert Mfg. Co. v. Bryan, 39 N.D. 13 , 166 N.W. 805, 808 (1918).”
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.