144 Ind. App. 543 - Schill v. Choate’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Orr v. Westminster Village North, Inc. (1997), 162 Ind. App. 470 - Sheraton Corp. of Am. v. Kingsford Packing Co., Inc. (1974)
40 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 Kapusta v. DePuy Manufacturing Co. · 143 Ind. App. 472 - Pomerenke v. National Life & Accident Insurance · 135 Ind. App. 1 - Richardson v. St. Mary's Hospital, Inc. · Keck v. State ex rel. National Cash Register Co. · 115 Ind. App. 414 - Ederer v. Froberg
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In order to constitute an equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais there must exist a false representation or concealment of material facts; it must have been made with knowledge, actual or constructive, of the facts; the party to whom it was made must have been without knowledge, or the means of knowledge of the real facts; it must have been made with the intention that it should be acted on; and the party to whom it was made must have relied on or acted on it to his prejudice. Midland Building Industries, Inc. v. Oldenkamp et al. (1952), 122 Ind. App. 347 , 103 N. E. 2d 451 ; 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, § 67, p. 254. “Where an estoppel is relied upon, it must be pleaded with particularity and precision, and nothing can be supplied by intendment, and, when there is ground for inference or intendment, it will be against, and not in favor of, the estoppel. Bowes et al. v. Lambert et al. (1943), 114 Ind. App. 364 , 51 N. E. 2d 83 , 51 N. E. 2d 897 ; Dudley et al. v. Pigg (1898), 149 Ind. 363 , 48 N. E. 642 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““When an estoppel is relied upon, it must be pleaded with particularity and precision, with every essential fact being set forth, for nothing can be supplied by inference or in-tendment and, indeed, if there is any ground for inference or intendment, it will be against and not in favor of estoppel.””
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.