Augustine v. Langlais’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2007 · most notably Martinez v. Lopez (1984), State v. Byrnes (1983)
2 district · 25 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 Kastal v. Hickory House, Inc. · Degen v. Bayman · Daugherty v. Hershberger · Andreozzi v. D'ANTUONO · Maryland Lumber Co. v. White
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[A] release by the injured person of one (1) joint tortfeasor * * * reduces the claim against the other tortfeasors in the amount of the consideration paid for the release, or in any amount or proportion by which the release provides that the total claim shall be reduced, if greater than the consideration paid.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““A release by the injured person of one (1) joint tortfeasor, whether before or after judgment, does not discharge the other tortfeasors unless the release so provides; but reduces the claim against the other tortfeasors in the amount of the consideration paid for the release, or in any amount or proportion by which the release provides that the total claim shall be reduced, if greater than the consideration paid.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. LaBounty v. LaBounty““an injured person is entitled to only one satisfaction of the tort, even though two or more parties contributed to the loss. * * * This principle was not altered by the enactment of § 10-6-7 which proscribes double recovery by unequivocally mandating that a release ‘reduces the claim against the other tortfeasors in the amount of the consideration paid for the release.’ ” Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lawrence v. Pokraka
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.