Brown v. Cooke’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2024
8 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 Steuart v. McChesney · 354 Pa. Super. 291 - Vogel v. Berkley · 360 Pa. Super. 597 - Sparler v. Fireman's Insurance Co. of Newark · 328 Pa. Super. 267 - Gallo v. J.C. Penney Casualty Insurance · 371 Pa. Super. 443 - Hower v. Whitmak Associates
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.
“I/we, ROBYN E. BUSEMAN, Relea-sors), of 121 W 7th St City of College-ville, PA being over the age of majority, for and in consideration of a draft for the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND 00/100 — dollars ($100,000), lawful money of the United States of America to me/us in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, do for myself/ourselves, my/our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, hereby remise, release, and forever discharge KEVIN REEVES. 6 Release(s), successors, and assigns, and/or his, her or their associates, heirs, executors and administrators, and all other persons, firms or corporations of and from any and every claim, demand, right or cause of action, of whatever kind of nature, on account of or in any way growing out of any and all personal injuries and consequences thereof, including but not limited to, all causes of action preserved by the wrongful death statute applicable, any loss of services and consortium, any injuries which may exist but which at this time are unknown and unanticipated and which may develop at some time in the future, all unforeseen developments arising from known injuries, and any and all property damage resulting or to result from an accident that occurred on or about the 28th day of June, 2003, at or near DAN-VILLE, PA and especially all liability arising out of said accident including, but not limited to, all liability for consideration and/or indemnity. AS A FURTHER CONSIDERATION FOR THE MAKING OF SAID ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[W]hen construing the effect and scope of a release, the court, as it does with all other contracts, must try to give effect to the intentions of the parties. Yet, the primary source of the court’s understanding of the parties’ intent must be the document itself. Thus, what a party now claims to have intended is not as important as the intent that we glean from a reading of the document itself. The parties’ intent at the time of signing as embodied in the ordinary meaning of the words of the document is our primary concern.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Clauses in a contract should not be read as independent agreements thrown together without any consideration of their combined effect. Indeed, the document is best read as a whole, wherein clauses seemingly in conflict are construed, if possible, as consistent with one another. In re Binenstock’s Trust, 410 Pa. 425 , 190 A.2d 288 (1963). Terms in one section of the contract should not be interpreted in a manner which nullifies other terms.”
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.