Bernstein v. Kapneck’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 6 district · 76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Higgins v. Barnes (1987), Williams v. Glash (1990)
10 federal appellate · 6 district · 76 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 Mangini v. McClurg · Slice v. Carozza Properties, Inc. · Parish v. Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n · Kasten Construction Co. v. Rod Enterprises, Inc. · Couillard v. Charles T. Miller Hospital, Inc.
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A court construing an agreement under this test must first determine from the language of the agreement itself what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have meant at the time it was effectuated. In addition, when the language of the contract is plain and unambiguous there is no room for construction, and a court must presume that the parties meant what they expressed. In these circumstances, the true test of what is meant is not what the parties to the contract intended it to mean, but what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have thought it meant. Consequently, the clear and unambiguous language of an agreement will not give away [sic] to what the parties thought that the agreement meant or intended it to mean. Consequently, the clear and unambiguous language of an agreement will not give away to what the parties thought that the agreement meant or intended it to mean.... As a result, when the contractual language is clear and unambiguous, and in the absence of fraud, duress, or mistake, parol evidence is not admissible to show the intention of the parties or to vary, alter, or contradict the terms of that contract.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any and all claims, demands, actions ... or suits of whatever kind or nature,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“known and unknown, and which have resulted or may in the future develop”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.