Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 25 Utah 2d 237 - Berlant v. McAllister

25 Utah 2d 237 - Berlant v. McAllister’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
April 2000
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Fikes v. Johnson · 18 N.J. Super. 95 - Isaacson v. Boswell · Kirtley v. Irey

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

  1. ““The attorney for the carrier has no authority to settle any claim of the insured, and if, in order to effect a settlement of the claim against the insured, he must make a mutual settlement of the claims of all parties, he must secure the consent of the insured to make it binding in the absence of some principle of estoppel in pais. “The elements of estoppel in pais are set out in 28 Am.Jur.2d, Estoppel, Section 35, as follows: “[‘] * * * (1) lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts in question; (2) reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to be estopped; and (3) action or inaction based thereon of such a character as to change the position of status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment, or prejudice. [’] “We can see no estoppel against this plaintiff. He was not a party to the settlement, although it naturally benefited him. It was a settlement only of the claims of the administrator of the estates of the Mowers and specifically recited that it was without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff Berlant.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The defendant claims ratification on the part of plaintiff in that the lawyer for the insurance company set forth the settlement as a defense to the counterclaim. We do not think there is anything in that defense to defeat plaintiff’s claim, as the only thing which could be ratified by anybody was the settlement of defendant’s claim against plaintiff for $5150 cash.” [Emphasis in text copied]”
    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.