Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 484 So. 2d 428 - Williams v. Nolin

484 So. 2d 428 - Williams v. Nolin’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
May 2007
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 2007

2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

40198619902000decided

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 413 So. 2d 391 - DeStafney v. University of Alabama · 395 So. 2d 65 - Ex Parte Carter · Mass Appraisal Services, Inc. v. Carmichael · 456 So. 2d 45 - Kitchens v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. · 83 Wash. 2d 719 - Wood v. Dunlop

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

  1. “"As with other contracts, where the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, its effect can be determined as a matter of law and extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary its terms. However, if the instrument is ambiguous in any respect, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the intent of the parties, which is a question for the finder of fact. The initial determination of whether the contract is ambiguous is a question of law. "A contract which is clear on its face nevertheless may be ambiguous if there is a collateral matter which makes its meaning uncertain. This concept of a `latent' ambiguity is an exception to the general rule that the court cannot look at matters extrinsic to a facially clear and definite contract."”
    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.