Gebbie v. Cadle Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Thames River Recycling, Inc. v. Gallo (1998), Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Omega, S.A. (2005)
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 43 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 Cheshire Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Montes · Chmielewski v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · Foley v. Huntington Co. · State v. Manning · Ullmann v. State
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ccording to general principles of contract law, rescission based on a mistaken understanding of the terms of an agreement is available only where the mistake is mutual, or where one party's mistake has been caused by the other party's fraud.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“$160,000 [was] payable over a ten year term with a thirty year amortization at a stated rate of interest; (2) the total obligations were to be canceled if Gebbie fully complied with the repayment terms; and (3) in the event of default, the full balance would be reinstated. The effect of this agreement was to consolidate the two notes and mortgage obligations and, in consideration of a payment of $40,000, to restructure the agreement. The letter agreement called for acceptance in the form of a $4,000 deposit. This deposit was tendered by Gebbie and accepted by ALI.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Cadle's refusal to honor and effectuate the loans restructure agreement and their related conduct, including failing to release the foreclosure attachments and lis pendens, constitute a violation of the Act [CUTPA]." Memorandum of Decision August 29, 1996, p. 20. [134]”
2 later decisions 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.