149 Ind. App. 569 - Lows v. Warfield’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is our opinion that the agreement signed by Lows was a ‘covenant not to sue’ and not a general release. In determining whether an agreement is a general release or a ‘covenant not to sue’, the courts of this state have displayed two related trends: First—instruments in the form of releases will be construed as ‘covenants not to sue’ in order to carry out the intentions of the parties as they appear from the context and the surrounding circumstances. Snyder et al. v. Miller et al. (1939), 216 Ind. 143 , 22 N.E.2d 985 ; Steeg and Associates, Inc. v. Rynearson (1968), 143 Ind.App. 567 , 241 N.E.2d 888 . Second—the controlling factor is the intention of the parties, rather than the express provisions of the instrument itself. Clapper v. Original Tractor Cab Co., (7th Cir. 1959) 270 F.2d 616 ; Landers v. McComb Window and Door Co. (1969), 145 Ind.App. 38 , 248 N.E.2d 358 . The tenor of this ‘Covenant Not to Sue’' is that of a promise by an injured party not to sue a tort-feasor for his injuries arising out of an accident occuring at a certain time and place in consideration of the receipt of a given amount of money. The usual language of a general release is not present—such words as ‘release’, ‘discharge’, ‘liability’, ‘full satisfaction’ are missing. Lows further indicated his intent by bringing suit against Warfield shortly after executing the Covenant Not to Sue.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Number One Beverage, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co.

2. “"In all cases in which a motion to correct errors is the appropriate procedure preliminary to an appeal, such motion shall separately specify as grounds therefor each error relied upon however and whenever arising up to the time of filing such motion. Issues which could be raised upon a motion to correct errors may be considered upon appeal only when included in the motion to correct errors filed with the trial court. A motion to correct errors shall not be required in the case of appeals from interlocutory orders, orders appointing or refusing to appoint a receiver, and from orders in proceedings supplemental to execution."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Mishawaka v. Stewart

3. “The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits and testimony, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 148 Ind. App. 675 - LaSalle Cas. Ins. Co. v. AMER. UNDERWRITERS, INC.