Brill v. Brandt’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 1981
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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 Crow v. . Gleason · Blanchard v. . Blanchard · Spies v. . National City Bank · National Park Bank v. . Koehler · Butler v. Wright
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Consideration to be credited to co-obligor. The amount of value of any consideration received by the obligee from one or more of * * * joint, or of joint and several obli-gors, in whole or in partial satisfaction of their obligations, shall be credited to the extent of the amount received on the obligations of all co-obligors to whom the obligor or obligors giving the consideration did not stand in the relation of a surety.” “Discharge of one obligor, with reservations. Subject to the provisions of section two hundred and thirty-three, the obligee’s release or discharge of one or more of several obligors, or of one or móre of joint or of joint and several obligors shall not discharge co-obligors, against whom the obligee in writing and as part of the same transaction as the release or discharge, expressly reserves his rights, and in the absence of such a reservation of rights shall discharge co-obligors only to the extent provided in section two hundred and thirty-five.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“although written in an attempt to compromise the judgments for less than their full value, are not inconsistent with an intention to pay the same in the event that settlement negotiations should fail. They contain no suggestion of an intent to repudiate or dispute the indebtedness. ..”
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.