Merryweather v. Pendleton’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Brand v. Elledge (1966), 4 Ariz. App. 580 - Carrasco v. Carrasco (1967)
2 federal appellate · 43 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 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · United States v. Aluminum Co. of America · Galena Oaks Corporation v. Frank Scofield, Collector of Internal Revenue · Russell v. Southard · Schwartz v. Schwerin
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the prior negotiations of the parties; (2) the distress of the “grantor”; (3) the fact that the amount advanced was about the amount that the grantor needed to pay an existing indebtedness; (4) the amount of the consideration paid in comparison to the actual value of the property jn question; (5) a contemporaneous agreement to repurchase; and (6) the subsequent acts of the parties, as a means of discerning the interpretation they themselves gave to the transaction.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * We think the situation justified the application of the maxim ‘equity regards the substance rather than the form,’ as explained in 21 Corpus Juris 204, 205, § 200: “ ‘This maxim is as applicable at the present time as it was when it was first formulated. By force of its principle equity goes behind the form of a transaction in order to give effect to the intention of the parties, either to aid in (an) act abortive at law because formally defective, or to impose a liability as against an evasion by a formal concealment of its true character. In the construction of a written instrument, equity always attempts to get at its substance, and to ascertain, uphold, and enforce the rights and duties that spring from the real intention of the parties. In doing so, while it will of course not change the words of the instrument, the court of equity will look into all the circumstances under which it was made, in order to determine the proper meaning of the transaction. It will do this not only to sustain a just claim but to defeat an unlawful demand.’ ””
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.