Deckard v. General Motors Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “There was evidence that shortly after the accident [Wilhite] had a conversation with Barnett, the owner of the motor vehicle, in ' which [Wilhite] demanded payment for damages to his property; that [Wilhite]’s personal injuries were not at that time thought to be consequential and that no mention was made of these; that Barnett directed [Wilhite] to take the matter up with the agent for his insurance carrier, which [Wilhite] did; that [Wilhite] demanded of the agent $140 for the loss of his horse, $10 for the damage to the harness, and $6 for the mowing machine. [Wilhite]’s personal injuries were not mentioned in this conversation. Subsequently, [Wil-hite] received a letter from the insurance company offering him $116 in settlement of his claim for the loss of his horse and the damage to his harness and mowing machine. The offer was accepted, and the company forwarded a check for the above amount, which was cashed by [Wilhite].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Evan v. Poe & Associates, Inc.

2. “Indiana already recognizes that parol evidence can be considered if the contract is ambiguous. See, e.g., Huffman, 588 N.E.2d at 1267 (holding that where “contradictory references cloud the intent of the document .... parol evidence may be utilized to determine the parties’ true intentions respecting the document’s application”). The “stranger to the contract” exception is an additional exception to the parol evidence rule. For example, in Wilhite , despite the plain and unambiguous language of the contract, the court held that parol evidence could be used to determine the intent of the parties. Wilhite, 31 N.E.2d at 282 . While commentators have criticized the “stranger to the contract” exception to the parol evidence rule, see 13 A.L.R.3d 313 , § 2c (arguing that the parol evidence rule should apply both to strangers and to parties), Wil-hite, White and Bums have not been overruled in Indiana.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Evan v. Poe & Associates, Inc.