Schmidt v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Frey Ex Rel. Frey v. Snelgrove (1978), Bernstein v. Kapneck (1981)
2 federal appellate · 8 district · 38 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 Sauter Ex Rel. Benson v. Sauter · Aronovitch v. Levy · 15 Ill. App. 2d 171 - Clancy v. Pacenti · Dansby v. Buck · Denton v. Utley
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“beyond the language of the release itself.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“If there is to be avoidance of a release on the ground of mistake, it must be based upon a finding of unknown injuries that were in existence and not within the contemplation of the parties when the settlement was agreed upon.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“There are at least two policy considerations that this court must balance in determining when voidance of personal injury releases should be permitted. One compelling argument in favor of a liberal policy is that the individual who lacks knowledge of his injuries because of fraud, concealment of facts, or mistake may sign a release and thereafter become a public charge.... However, it is also true that the law favors compromises, and there must be a zone of free action within which differences may be terminated by the parties with the complete assurance that the matter is final. "To permit [release settlements] to be vacated except for the most compelling reason creates `uncertainty, chaos, and confusion' with respect to future dispositions, and is a disservice to other litigants whose matters are thereby delayed." [ Schmidt v. Smith, 299 Minn. 103 , 216 N.W.2d 669, 671-72 (1974).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bernstein v. Kapneck
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.