Poston v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Wade v. Berkeley County (2002), Ecclesiastes Production Ministries v. Outparcel Associates, LLC (2007)
22 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 Bartholomew v. McCartha · Rager v. Superior Coach Sales & Service of Arizona · 231 F. Supp. 883 - Land v. United States · Keaton v. Pearson · 259 F. Supp. 358 - Ayers v. Pastime Amusement Company
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Other jurisdictions hold that a Covenant Not To Execute is not a satisfaction or a release and that its legal effect is similar to that of a Covenant Not To Sue because it does not operate to release other joint tortfeasors. A Covenant Not To Execute is a promise not to enforce a right of action or execute a judgment when one had such a right at the time of entering into the agreement. A Covenant Not to Sue and a Covenant Not to Execute are so closely akin that a major distinguishing factor is that the latter is normally executed when a settlement occurs after the filing of a lawsuit, while the former is entered into before a lawsuit is filed. In South Carolina when a Covenant Not To Sue has been entered into, usually the covenanting tortfeasor is no longer a party to the litigation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he jury was denied information to which it was entitled as to the sources of remuneration available to the plaintiff and by whom such remuneration would be paid. The fact that the agreement was not disclosed to the jury in this instance facilitates inequity and injustice in the judicial process.... Under the circumstances of this case, the agreement should have been allowed into evidence to insure that an equitable verdict was reached. Id.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Todd v. Joyner · Todd v. Joyner
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.