Peterson v. Ramsey County’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 2020
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 Grinaker v. Grinaker · Ebach v. Ralston · Frank v. Daimler-Benz, AG, Stuttgart · Mougey v. Salzwedel · Earthworks, Inc. v. Sehn
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.
“without waiving any claims he had previously made in writing. Section 14.16 of the general contract for construction states in part: The making and acceptance of final payment will constitute: . . . 14.16.2. a waiver of all claims by CONTRACTOR against OWNER other than those previously made in writing and still unsettled. [Emphasis in original]. Peterson's May 29, 1992, letter setting forth his claims and requesting the additional $37,667.14 meets the general contract requirement of placing disputed claims in writing before acceptance of final payment. The trial court found,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Huber v. Dooher“under the contract. Peterson cashed the check only after setting forth his claims in writing to the County and indicating he would litigate if he was not paid. Peterson, like Shirazi, testified he did not accept or cash the check with the understanding that doing so would constitute a full settlement of all his claims. The trial court found Peterson's endorsing and cashing the check was without intent to settle all claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Huber v. Dooher“Shirazi , 354 N.W.2d at 655 (citations omitted). We conclude under the facts of this case the trial court's finding the County failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence an accord and satisfaction is not clearly erroneous. [¶16] In this appeal, neither party addressed section 14.16 of the general contract between the parties specifically allowing Peterson to accept a”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Huber v. Dooher
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.