Stevens v. Olsen’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 158 Ind. App. 311 - Lindenborg v. M & L Builders and Brokers, Inc. · Ramon v. Glenroy Const. Co., Inc. · Fish v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · Levinson v. Citizens National Bank of Evansville · Hart v. Steel Products, Inc.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The remedy sought by Olsen in this actioh, rescission of the contract, does not contemplate compensatory or punitive damages. If a party seeks to rescind a contract, she “may not recover general damages, but is only entitled to be returned to the status quo, which usually nécessitates a return of money or other things received or paid under the contract[.]” Hart v. Steel Products, Inc., 666 N.E.2d 1270, 1275 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied (internal quotations omitted). Thus, Olsen’s remedy is not money damages, but the return of the consideration that she paid to Stevens under their contract. Olsen is not entitled to have a trial by jury in this equitable action and the trial court erred by allowing a jury to decide this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“rescission is an equitable remedy and must be tried by the court,”
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.