Greenhalch v. Shell Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis
78 F.2d 942 · 1935
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 1999
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha v. Chicago Burlington Quincy Railroad Company · Milks v. McIver · New York Life Ins. v. Doerksen · Graves & Houtchens v. Diamond Hill Independent School Dist. · Young v. Anderson
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[that section] enables a plaintiff to release one obligor without discharging others where there is a written and express reservation of rights against the others. This part of the sentence is clear; there being no such reservation here against defendant, it does not advance plaintiffs case. The part of [UJOA § 4] after the semicolon provides that without such reservation, the release shall discharge co[-]obli-gors only to the extent provided in [UJOA § 5]. [UJOA § 5] however is meaningless as applied to cases such as this, where there is no relationship between joint tort-feasors which requires one of them to pay or contribute to the other.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Converse v. James“In detail, the language of parts of the statute is confusing. In its broad aspect, we have no doubt the legislature intended to embody therein the more liberal rule to which we subscribe, that is, it permits a plaintiff who has not been fully compensated to release one of several defendants without releasing the others by expressly and in writing reserving his rights against such others, with the incidental provision that payments received from the released one shall be credited to the others, unless there exists between the obligors some relationship which would make such credit inequitable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Converse v. James
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.