Kercheval v. Doty’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 32 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A mere false claim, a sham, one set up without any colorable pretense or plausible foundation, might not come within the terms or definition of a compromise, and might not sustain it. Characterized by bad faith, the preferring of such a claim would itself be a fraud, and concessions made or rights yielded on the strength of it would not be lost, nor the settlement be a bar.'’ Kerchaval v. Doty, 31 Wis. 476, 485 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Colby Cheese Box Co. v. Laabs · Urdangen v. Fryer

2. ““ . if it were necessary, in order to sustain an adjustment of conflicting claims, to determine their relative validity and value, no compromise would be possible, and the uncertainty, delay and scandal would be incurred, which such arrangements are usually designed to avoid.’ . . . ‘. . . [W]hen a compromise has been fairly effected, its validity will be independent of the merits of the controversy on which it is founded, and it cannot be re-opened for the purpose, or with the effect, of reviving the dispute which it was meant to terminate.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Superior Builders, Inc. v. Large

3. “[N]o matter what the actual and true merits of their respective claims may have been pending the controversy, the same will not afterwards be inquired into or examined. The settlement is a complete bar to such inquiry and examination.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 392 Wis. 2d 578 - State v. Ryan M. Muth