Johnson v. Hovland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

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

1. ““A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, unconscionably, or unreasonably, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination. When a proposed amendment would be futile, the district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend the complaint.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Olson v. Alerus Financial Corp. · Benz Farm, LLP v. Cavendish Farms, Inc.

2. ““Reformation is an equitable remedy used to rewrite a contract to accurately reflect the parties’ intended agreement.” Spitzer v. Bartelson, 2009 ND 179, ¶ 22 , 773 N.W.2d 798 . This Court has recognized that “equity will grant remedial relief in the nature of reformation of a written instrument, resulting from a mutual mistake, when justice and conscience so dictate.” Ell v. Ell, 295 N.W.2d 143, 150 (N.D. 1980). Whether a contract contains a mistake sufficient to support a reformation claim is a question of fact. See Spitzer, at ¶ 23; Heart River Partners v. Goetzfried, 2005 ND 149, ¶ 15 , 703 N.W.2d 330 . The party seeking reformation of a written instrument must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the document does not state the parties’ intended agreement. Spitzer, 2009 ND 179, ¶ 24 , 773 N.W.2d 798 ; Heart River Partners, 2005 ND 149, ¶ 14 , 703 N.W.2d 330 . Courts grant the “high remedy of reformation” only upon the “certainty of error.” EU, 295 N.W.2d at 150 . We have discussed the type of evidence admissible in deciding whether reformation is appropriate: “It is well-established that parol evidence is admissible in a suit to reform a written instrument on the grounds of fraud or mutual mistake of the parties.” Ell v. Ell, 295 N.W.2d 143, 149 (N.D. 1980). Accord Heart River Partners v. Goetzfried, 2005 ND 149, ¶ 12 , 703 N.W.2d 330 ; City of Fargo v. D.T.L. Properties, Inc., 1997 ND 109, ¶ 12 , 564 N.W.2d 274 ; Mau v. Schwan, 460 N.W.2d 131, 134 (N.D. 1990)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Goodall v. Monson · Bala v. PWE Enters., Inc. (In re Racing Servs., Inc.)

3. “When, through fraud or mutual mistake of the parties, or a mistake of one party which the other at the time knew or suspected, a written contract does not truly express the intention of the parties, it may be revised on the application of a party aggrieved se as to express that intention so far as it can be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons in good faith and for value.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arndt v. Maki · George v. Veeder