Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 Utah 525 - Chatelain v. Thackeray

Chatelain v. Thackeray’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
6
states following
January 1986
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 1986

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions

5019401950196019701980decided

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 Borgstede v. Waldbauer · Industrial Commission v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance · Wesolowski v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. · 94 Cal. App. 703 - May v. Farrell · American Savings Life Insurance v. Riplinger

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

  1. ““The written agreement between appellant and the defendant, Thackeray, was entered into on the 19th day of April, 1934, and, as has been said, was still in effect at the time of the accident, February 8, 1938. By its terms appellant constituted and appointed the defendant, Thackeray, its agent for the territory designated therein as ‘Morgan, Ogden, Utah and vicinity.’ “The agreement provides that the said H. A. Thackeray is appointed agent ‘to canvass and procure applications for ordinary life insurance in said company, in the territory named; to collect and pay over the premiums thereon to the company in cash on such insurance when effected, and to perform such other duties in connection therewith as may be from time to time required by the company, and for no other purpose whatsoever.’ It further provides, among other things, that the said agent should have no authority to alter or discharge any policy, to extend the time for paying any premium, to incur any liability on behalf of the company, or to enter into any contract or agreement whatsoever on behalf of the company. As to the powers and duties of the agent the agreement provides that the agent ‘shall devote his entire time and energies to the business of the company, carry out its instructions, promote its success and welfare, and shall do no business for any other life insurance company;’ and further, that ‘the agent shall be governed by the written and printed instructions and rules which he may from time to time re”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Granting or refusing a new trial on these grounds of necessity largely rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Hirabelli v. Daniels, 44 Utah 88 , 138 P. 1172, 1174 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““We are * * * slow to interfere with a ruling granting or refusing a new trial on questions relating to damages.””
    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.