Iqbal v. Ziadeh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “[T]he cases vary as to their approach in determining the scope of a general release and what evidence is necessary to obtain or defeat summary judgment on the basis that the general release bars a claim against another tortfeasor. It is consistently clear, however, that the law permits a plaintiff who opposes enforcement of a general release by a third party to offer extrinsic evidence as to the circumstances surrounding negotiation and signing of the release to attempt to show that releasing "any other person," meaning everyone, does not comport with the parties' intent. Such evidence was lacking in General Motors , Lama , and Rodriguez . Such evidence was present in Appleton , Neverkovec (where the language of the release was ambiguous as well), and Hess . The issue here is once Homuth presented evidence to show she was an intended beneficiary of the release, whether Cline offered competent evidence of the parties' intent and, if so, whether this evidence was sufficient to show the parties to the release did not intend to benefit Homuth, but rather to exclude her from the protection of the release, despite its plain language which extended to the "world."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Deerpoint Grp., Inc. v. Agrigenix, LLC

2. “Plaintiff relies on [ Neverkovec ] which held a third party could not rely solely on a literal interpretation of the contractual language to prove he was an intended third-party beneficiary. Defendant relies on [ Rodriguez ], which held if the requisite intent to make someone a third-party beneficiary appears unambiguously from the face of the contract, the third party makes a prima facie showing of entitlement merely by proving the contract where the opposing party introduces no evidence to establish the contract is ambiguous.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Deerpoint Grp., Inc. v. Agrigenix, LLC

3. “[T]he circumstance that a literal contract interpretation would result in a benefit to the third party is not enough to entitle [the third party] to demand enforcement [of the contract].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Deerpoint Grp., Inc. v. Agrigenix, LLC