Maffet v. Schaar’s Empirical Analysis
1913
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 1994
12 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 Crim v. Crim · Speed v. Hollingsworth · Morrow v. Bonebrake · Leicher v. Keeney · Wickham v. Grant
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(Burch, J.:) . . . The true consideration of a deed may always be shown by parol, and consequently an action for money had and received, accruing to the plaintiff for the excess payment, may be supported by such proof. Again, the written memorandum of sale and the deed did not express fully the agreement of the parties. Those instruments did not embody the •agreement respecting the price per acre.” (p. 408.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““When the basis of the action is false representation parol evidence regarding the inducement held out to the vendee is always admissible.” (Maffet v. Schaar, supra, 407.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kowing v. Reynolds
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.