Scott County v. Vaughn’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 2012
2 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 United States v. Lefkowitz · Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, Inc. · Bayh v. Sonnenburg · 145 Ind. App. 159 - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Otis · Boehm v. Town of St. John
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[A] loan receipt is an instrumentality which permits the insurer to pay an insured speedily and yet press in court to recoup its losses from the wrongdoer without the insurer appearing by name, thereby avoiding some of the consequences of subrogation.” [Klukas v. Yount,] 121 Ind.App. 160 , 98 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind.Ct.App.1951). Loan receipt agreements or “partial settlement agreements,” as they are sometimes referred to, were described by Judge Robertson in Burkett v. Crulo Trucking Co, Inc. as follows: A loan receipt agreement, in its simplest form, provides that one with potential liability to a claimant will advance funds in the form of a non-interest loan to the claimant in order that the claim may be prosecuted against another who is also potentially liable for the claim. In return for the funds advanced, the claimant agrees that he will not sue or will not seek to enforce a judgment against the lender and will repay the loan according to some formula based upon the claimant’s recovery against the other party. Such an agreement, then, serves to limit the liability of one against whom a claim might be pressed and, at the same time, gives the claimant an immediate ‘bird in hand’ instead of forcing him to await but possible recovery following protracted litigation. 171 Ind.App. 166 , 355 N.E.2d 253, 258 (Ind.Ct.App.1976). The judicial policy of this State strongly favors the use of partial settlement agreements. Manns v. State, Dept. of Highways, 541 N.E.2d 929, 932 (Ind.19”
2 later decisions 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.