70 Wash. 2d 309 - Pepper v. Evanson’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently October 1993
23 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 67 Wash. 2d 621 - Beaver v. Estate of Harris · Stahl v. Schwartz · 48 Wash. 2d 22 - Schwieger v. Harry W. Robbins & Co. · Betcher v. Kunz · 44 Wash. 2d 884 - Silen v. Silen
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. When a release is in plain and unambiguous language, as is the release in this case, we have said that: (a) Before a plain, unambiguous instrument can be set aside on the ground of mutual mistake, the evidence must be clear and convincing. Spratt v. Northern Pac. Ry., 90 Wash. 592 , 156 Pac. 563 (1916). (b) The courts will not interpret the meaning of unambiguous contracts. Silen v. Silen, 44 Wn.2d 884 , 271 P.2d 674 (1954). (c) Where a release contains plain and unambiguous language, parol evidence will not be admitted to vary the release, Betcher v. Kunz, 112 Wash. 563 , 192 Pac. 955 (1920); unless the release was induced by fraud, false representations or overreaching. Reynolds v. Day, 93 Wash. 395 , 161 Pac. 62 (1916). 2. A court of equity will limit a general release to matters contemplated by the parties at the time of its execution, Bakamus v. Albert, 1 Wn.2d 241 , 95 P.2d 767 (1939); but that rule is not controlling when the release refers specifically to the matter being considered by the court, Schwieger v. Harry W. Robbins & Co., 48 Wn.2d 22, 25 , 290 P.2d 984 (1955). In this latter case we quoted the following language: “[I]f the words of a release fairly import a general discharge, their effect may not be limited so as to exclude a demand simply upon proof that at the time of its execution the releasor had no knowledge of the existence of the demand.” 3. A mutual mistake must be one involving both parties, a mistake independently made by each party. If the def”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is understood and agreed that this is a full and final release of all claims of every nature and kind whatsoever, and releases claims that are known and unknown, suspected and unsuspected.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“There is nothing in the release from which any inference can be drawn but that the parties intended fully to settle thereby any and all unknown and unforeseen claims arising out of the accident. Indeed, appellant does not argue that the insurance carrier did not intend to include these words in the release.”
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.