Phillips v. Lagaly’s Empirical Analysis
214 F.2d 527 · 1954
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 2008
5 federal appellate · 4 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 Warren v. Rickles · Martin v. New York Life Ins. Co. · Great Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Brooks · Central States Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whether the acceptance of a check constitutes payment depends upon the intent of the parties. A leading case on the question is Martin v. New York Life Insurance Co., 30 N.M. 400 , 234 P. 673, 675 , also reported and annotated in 40 A.L.R. 406 . The general rule is there stated to be that ‘the receipt of such a check or draft is predicated upon the implied understanding that it will be paid.’ That is also the rule in Oklahoma where the court has said that ‘An insurer may accept a personal check in payment of a life insurance premium, but such acceptance is conditional, in the absence of a contrary intention, upon due payment of the check, and the burden is upon the insured or his beneficiary to prove a contrary intention on the part of the insurer.’ Central States Life Insurance Co. v. Johnson, 181 Old. 367, 73 P.2d 1152, 1153 ; * * *””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he intentional relinquishment of a known right.”
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.