Prince v. Poole’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[S]ubstantial evidence is evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.”

   29 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Metcalf v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union · Beddingfield v. Mullins Ins. Co.

2. “' "[ (1) ]the existence of a valid contract binding the parties in the action, (2) [the plaintiff's] own performance under the contract , (3) the defendant's nonperformance, and (4) damages.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Front St. Constr., LLC v. Colonial Bank, N.A. · Tidmore v. Citizens Bank & Trust

3. ““‘The applicability of the parol evidence rule necessarily rests upon the existence of a valid written instrument that completely and accurately expresses the obligations assumed by or imposed upon the parties. The very purpose of the parol evidence rule is to protect the verity of such an instrument. As noted by this Court in Hibbett Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Biernbaum, 375 So.2d 431, 434 (Ala.1979), quoting Sellers v. Dickert, 185 Ala. 206, 213 , 64 So. 40, 43 (1913), “[t]he implication, at least, is that the executed writing contains all stipulations, engagements and promises the parties intend to make or to assume, and that all previous negotiations, conversations, and parol agreements are merged in the terms of the instrument.” In other words, the parol evidence rule does not apply to every contract of which there exists written evidence; it applies, instead, only when the parties to an agreement reduce it to writing, and agree or intend that the writing shall be their complete agreement. Biernbaum, supra at 434 , citing 3 Williston, Contracts, § 633.’ “First Commercial Bank v. Spivey, 694 So.2d 1316, 1326-27 (Ala.1997). [[Image here]] “... [W]here it is clear that a written instrument was not intended to reflect the full agreement of the parties, the [parol-evidence] rule allows parties to present additional facts not contained in the instrument for the purpose of supplementing the terms set out in the writing. The case for parol evidence is most clear-cut where the docum”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Poole v. Prince