Wright v. Wagner’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Board of Cosmetologists (1973), Hill v. Cross Country Settlement, LLC (2007)
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 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 Keller v. Ashford · Horn v. Cole · Benson v. Borden · Rodgers v. John · Rosenthal v. Heft
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In this country ‘waiver’ and ‘estoppel’ are often used synonymously by courts and text writers, particularly in insurance law (Vance on Insurance, p. 343; Ewart’s Waiver Distributed, p. 8), although the terms have separate and distinct functions, and the same set of facts may establish one but not the other. The confusion arising from the misapplication of these terms, and their relation to ‘election,’ ‘release’ and ‘contract,’ is described in an exhaustive collation and analysis of authorities and reported cases in Ewart’s Waiver Distributed; and the demarcation between ‘waiver’ and ‘estoppel’ is lucidly delineated in 40 Cyc. 255, as follows: ‘While waiver belongs to the family of estoppel, and the doctrine of estoppel lies at the foundation of the law of waiver, they are nevertheless distinguishable terms. * * * Waiver is the voluntary surrender of a right; estoppel is the inhibition to assert it from the mischief that has followed. Waiver involves both knowledge and intention; estoppel may arise where there is no intent to mislead. Waiver depends upon what one himself intends to do; estoppel depends rather upon what he causes his adversary to do. Waiver involves the acts and conduct of only one of the parties; estoppel involves the conduct of both. A waiver does not necessarily imply that one has been misled to his prejudice or into an altered position; an estoppel always involves this element. * * * Estoppel may carry the implication of fraud, waiver does not. A waiver m”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pyles v. Callis
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.