Gleason v. Guzman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 26 state decisions

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

1. “of the basic character of the primary injury for which the release was sought and executed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Amerigas Propane and Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office · Amerigas Propane v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of Colo.

2. “for future unknown injuries or the later consequences of known or unknown injuries”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Amerigas Propane and Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office · Amerigas Propane v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of Colo.

3. “Cases addressing the problem of mistake in the settlement of personal injury claims reflect a tension stemming, on the one hand, from the general need for finality in the contractual settlements of actual or potential lawsuits and, on the other hand, from a recognized need to alleviate the distorting and unintended effects which human error can impose on a transaction. [Citations omitted.] Although the approaches are not totally discrete, they do lean in different directions. One approach denies rescission even though the injuries were not known or suspected at the time of the settlement. [Citation omitted.] Under this view the releasor assumes the risk that the nature and extent of known injuries might be more severe than was believed at settlement. Another approach allows rescission based on any mistake as to the condition of the injured claimant, whether the mistake relates to the nature of the injuries or to their further consequences. [Citations omitted.] Midway between these approaches is the view that rescission is available for mistakes relating to the nature of known injuries but not for mistakes as to the future course and effects of those injuries. [Citations omitted.] The assumption here is that rescission must be based on mistake, and mistake for legal purposes must relate to a past or present fact rather than an opinion or prophecy about the future. [Citation omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gossinger v. Association of Apartment Owners of the Regency