Buckmaster v. Dent’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 2019
2 federal appellate · 5 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 Lacer v. Navajo County · 19 Ariz. App. 488 - University Realty & Development Co. v. Omid-Gaf, Inc. · Trebilcox v. Brown & Bain, P.A. · Heywood v. Ziol · 18 Ariz. App. 116 - Dutch Inns of America, Inc. v. Horizon Corporation
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since neither party knew or had reason to know the meaning intended by the other, there was no ‘meeting of the minds’ as to an essential term of the contract. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 20 (1979). The situation that existed here is similar to that in Heywood v. Ziol, 91 Ariz. 309 , 372 P.2d 200 (1962), in which the court noted the facts showed two unilateral mistakes existed since each party was laboring under a different interpretation of the legal effect of the contract provision in dispute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“some extrinsic facts could create 'a latent ambiguity in otherwise clear and intelligible language.'”
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.