Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 62 Idaho 82 - Estes v. Magee

Estes v. Magee’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
October 1978
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 1978

5 state decisions

301940195019601970decided

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 St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Hambright · St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Cox · Jacobson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. · Serr v. Biwabik Concrete Aggregate Co. · Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Elvins

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

  1. ““The case thus hinges on a question of fact as to whether respondent was mislead to his disadvantage at the time he signed the release by positive statements of appellant or the withholding of information peculiarly within appellant’s knowledge. Though extremely close and the facts and circumstances do not indicate such over-reaching as in Bennett v. Deaton, 57 Idaho 752 , 68 P.2d 895 , nevertheless, this court by the opinion in that case is committed to the doctrine that the setting aside of a release as herein, on substantial though conflicting evidence, is a question of fact for the jury or the trier of fact. Adherence to that doctrine justifies the affirmance of the judgment herein, which is accordingly so ordered.” 62 Idaho 95 , 109 P.2d 636 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The applicable rule generally recognized and followed is that a release induced by the fraudulent, or mistaken though honest, statements by a physician representing the releasee, as to the present nature or circumstances of an injury is not binding on the releas- or.” 62 Idaho at 91 , 109 P.2d at 634 .”
    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.