Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 587 F.2d 391 - McCamley v. Moss

McCamley v. Moss’s Empirical Analysis

587 F.2d 391 · 1978

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
January 1996
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 1996

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

40197819801990decided

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 Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · New England Mutual Life Insurance v. Null · Goodman v. Parwatikar · Ozark Milling Co. v. Allied Mills, Inc. · Simpson v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co.

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

  1. “To succeed in avoiding the release, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of evidence: 1. That the injury for which he seeks damages is not the result of the development of an injury known at the execution of the release, but is an injury that was wholly unknown at the release’s signing. 2. That the language of the release which purports to be a release of all known and unknown injuries does not reflect the actual agreement of the parties, but was a result of a mutual mistake of the parties. To determine whether the plaintiff has proven the above essential elements by a preponderance of the evidence, you should consider the following instructions. (emphasis added)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Language in an insurer-prepared release, such as the one in this case, which indicates that the settlement covers all injuries, “known and unknown,” does not in and of itself conclusively demonstrate the parties’ intent to settle claims for unknown injuries.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.