McWaters v. Parker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “The language of a release is important in determining the intention of the parties and, as a general rule, where the intention to settle for unknown [claims] is clearly expressed, and there is no fraud or overreaching involved, the release is a bar for injuries subsequently discovered.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dray v. US Valves Inc · Robert F. Dray, Sr. v. U.S. Valves, Inc., Pinnacle Computer Services, Inc., and Brian Ricci, Individually

2. “Having concluded that there was no fraud or mistake in this case, we believe that the language of the form clearly demonstrates the existence of adequate consideration and a meeting of the minds. Despite the clarity of the foregoing rule, Jeffery urges us to look beyond the four corners of the release to examine the parties [sic] actual intent. At oral argument, plaintiffs counsel suggested that Huffman v. Monroe County Com. School, 588 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind.1992), either permits or requires us to look beyond the release in this case. After reviewing Huffman , we find counsel’s conclusion to be erroneous. In Huffman , the court abolished the common law rule that the release of one joint tortfeasor released all other tort-feasors. Id. at 1267 . The court reasoned that a rule which assumed total release did not give appropriate deference to the parties’ intent. To remedy this failing, the court held that a release should be interpreted like any other contract-“with the intent of the parties regarding the purpose of the document governing.” Id. Nothing in this new rule addresses the appropriate method for determining the parties’ intentions, and nothing in this new rule is inconsistent with our conclusion. In fact, the Huffman court’s complete analysis sheds an unfavorable light on Jeffery’s contention. In applying the new rule, the court stated: The release document in this case cannot be said to be “clear and unambiguous” on its face.... These contradictory references cloud the int”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Evan v. Poe & Associates, Inc.

3. “The right of reliance is more difficult to determine for the reason it is tightly bound up with the duty of a representee to be diligent in safeguarding his interests. The legal obligation that a person exercise the common sense and judgment of which he is possessed is a practical limitation on the actionability of various representations. In the course of daily interaction and business dealing the average person encounters a barrage of opinions, advice, advertisements, estimates, and even “guestimates.” He simply cannot believe, or rely upon, everything he is told. “The design of the law is to protect the weak and credulous from the wiles and stratagems of the artful and cunning, as well as those whose vigilance and sagacity enable them to protect themselves.” ... However, it is also established that where persons stand mentally on equal footing, and in no fiduciary relation, the law will not protect one who fails to exercise common sense and judgment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 904 F. Supp. 884 - Lycan v. Walters