Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 260 Iowa 618 - Thomas v. Sheehan

Thomas v. Sheehan’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
July 1997
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 1997

1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

101967197019801990decided

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 Reed v. Harvey · Barnard v. Cedar Rapids City Cab Co. · Kelly v. Guy

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

  1. “(1) A release is a contract, and its validity is governed by the usual rules relating to contract; (2) A release may be set aside for mutual mistake of a material past or present fact, and the one who seeks that relief has the burden of proof; (3) There is a definite trend toward granting relief liberally where the injured party has released a claim under the false impression he was fully informed as to the nature and extent of his injuries; (4) In determining if there was mutual mistake we consider whether the settlement amount was based on an item-by-item computation or was a lump sum payment for the damages sustained; whether the question of liability was compromised as part of the settlement; and whether the amount paid was so inadequate as to indicate the matter of settling future or unknown damages was not within the contemplation of the parties; (5) It is the manifest intent of the parties, not the particular language used, which controls; and (6) An agreement to compromise unknown injuries and future damages is valid and enforceable if the parties intended that result at the time the settlement agreement was made.”
    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.