62 Ohio App. 3d 176 - Harchick v. Baio’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Temple v. Wean United, Inc. · 59 Cal. 2d 97 - Casey v. Proctor · Morris v. Ohio Casualty Insurance · 41 Ohio App. 2d 165 - Ohio, Dept. of Public Welfare v. Licsak · 56 Ohio App. 2d 88 - Citizens Insurance Co. of New Jersey v. Burkes
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““With respect to the substantive law regarding a claim of mutual mistake in executing a release, it is clear that a mutual mistake as to the full extent of the releasor’s injuries is a defense to a release, if the parties did not intend to relinquish all future claims. Sloan v. Standard Oil Co. (1964), 177 Ohio St. 149 , 29 O.O.2d 355 , 203 N.E.2d 237 , paragraph one of the syllabus; Woyma v. Ciolek (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 288, 290 , 11 OBR 518, 519, 465 N.E.2d 486, 488 . “Further, a factual dispute as to whether the parties intended that the release bar all future claims is a material issue which must be determined by the trier of fact. Sloan v. Standard Oil Co., supra, at paragraph two of the syllabus; Prada v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (Dec. 2, 1982), Cuyahoga App. No. 44809, unreported, 1982 WL 2568 . “Moreover, factors to be considered in determining the parties’ intent at the time the release was executed include ‘[t]he absence of bargaining and negotiating leading to settlement; the release is clearly liable; absence of discussion concerning personal injuries; the contention that the injuries were in fact unknown at the time the release was executed is reasonable; an inadequate amount of consideration received compared with the risk of the existence of unknown injuries (see Casey v. Proctor, supra [ (1963), 59 Cal.2d 97 , 28 Cal.Rptr. 307 , 378 P.2d 579 ], and authorities cited therein); haste by the releasee in securing the release (annotation, 71 A.L.R. [2d], 82,169 [1”
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.