Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 789 SW2D 261 - Williams v. Glash

Williams v. Glash’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

111
cited by 111 later decisions
4
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 88 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Ortiz v. Jones (1996), Schlumberger Technology Corp. v. Swanson (1997)

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 88 state decisions

390199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston))

Relationships

Relies on City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority · Texas v. Certain Named & Unnamed Undocumented Alien Children · Great American Reserve Insurance Co. v. San Antonio Plumbing Supply Co. · Aranda v. Insurance Co. of North America · 59 Cal. 2d 97 - Casey v. Proctor

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

  1. “The doctrine of mutual mistake must not routinely be available to avoid the results of an unhappy bargain. Parties should be able to rely on the finality of -freely bargained agreements. However, in narrow circumstances a party may raise a fact issue for the trier of fact to set aside a release under the doctrine of mutual mistake.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “That the undersigned, Paul Coats and Sally Coats, Individually and as Heirs of Angela Coats, for and in consideration of the total sum of [$342,000] cash in hand paid to us by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on behalf of Elizabeth Hammonds, Rick Hammonds and Rhonda Hammonds, ... do hereby RELEASE, ACQUIT, and FOREVER DISCHARGE, and have RELEASED, ACQUITTED and FOREVER DISCHARGED [the Hammondses] and their insurance company, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and their ... employees .., from any and all claims, demands, ... actions, causes of action, liabilities, ... and damages of whatsoever nature or character, whether known or unknown, which have accrued or may ever accrue in any capacity to Paul Coats and Sally Coats, Individually and as Heirs of Angela Coats ... resulting from, or in any way arising out of, an accident which occurred on or about the 23rd day of May, 1999, on U.S. 183 near Seymour, Baylor County, Texas, and/or the subsequent lawsuit filed.... [[Image here]] This Release does not release State Farm Automobile Insurance Company or its related entities ... from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, liabilities, ... and damages, if any, that Paul Coats and Sally Coats, [I]ndividually, and as Heirs of Angela Coats ... may have against State Farm for any bad faith action either by statute or common law, under the Texas Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act, Texas Insurance Code, or any claim or cause of action under ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In a subsequent suit for an unknown injury, once the affirmative defense of release has been pleaded and proved, the burden of proof is on the party seeking to avoid the release to establish mutual mistake. [This question] is determined not by self-serving subjective statements of the parties’ intent ... but rather solely by objective circumstances surrounding execution of the release, such as the knowledge of the parties at the time of signing concerning the injury, the amount of consideration paid, the extent of negotiations and discussions as to personal injuries, and the haste or lack thereof in obtaining the release. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 152, comment f (1981).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.