Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 6 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Barclays American/Mortgage Corp. v. Wilkinson (In Re Wilkinson).
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Barclays American/Mortgage Corp. v. Wilkinson (In Re Wilkinson) Anchor | green | “the plaintiff must show that 'there has been a mutual mistake-that is, where there has been a meeting of the minds-and an agreement actually entered into, but the instrument, in its written form, does not express what was intended by the parties thereto.” | 3 |
| 2 | Schaechter v. Madeoy ex rel. Schlossberg (In re Madeoy) | green | “the plaintiff must show that 'there has been a mutual mistake-that is, where there has been a meeting of the minds-and an agreement actually entered into, but the instrument, in its written form, does not express what was intended by the parties thereto.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.