Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 409 SW2D 127 - Pierson v. Allen

Pierson v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
3
states following
February 2012
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably Bean v. State (1970), Denny v. Mathieu (1970)

3 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

130196619701980199020002010decided

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 Keller v. Keklikian · Burstein v. United States · Max v. Spaeth · Landers v. Smith · Rudloff v. Johnson

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 stipulation is an agreement between counsel with respect to business before a court, and is not one of the usual pleadings, but is a proceeding in the cause and as such is under the supervision of the court * * *.” 83 C.J.S. Stipulations § 1, p. 2. They are controlling and conclusive, and courts are bound to enforce them.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the Settlement Agreement attached hereto, and made a part hereof, We do hereby release, acquit, and forever discharge Fox & Cole Consulting Engineers and Continental Casualty Company, their agents, servants, employees, successors, and assigns who might be liable of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims, offsets, demands, damages on account of, or in any way growing out of, limited to, work performed pursuant to Articles of Agreement between Fox & Cole Consulting Engineers and Ste. Genevieve County dated March 13, 1981, and as amended. It is further understood and agreed that the settlement is the compromise of a doubtful and disputed claim and is not to be construed as an admission of liability, which is expressly denied.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Stipulations varying or altering trial procedure, or waiving the benefit of procedural statutes, have been consistently enforced by our courts in the absence of any claim of fraud, duress or mistake, and we can perceive no sound reason why [Smith] should not now be held to what she has stipulated.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.