green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
12.4 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2004 ·
…the doctrine of estoppel is for the protection of innocent persons, and only innocent persons may invoke it.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Anderson v. the International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America Upgwa)
(2×)
the doctrine of estoppel is for the protection of innocent persons, and only innocent persons may invoke it.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Anderson v. International Union, United Plant Guard Workers
(2×)
the doctrine of estoppel is for the protection of innocent persons, and only innocent persons may invoke it.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Guaranty Service Corporation, Cross-Appellees v. American Employers' Insurance Company, Cross-Appellant
(2×)
it is well-established that a motion for new trial based upon inflammatory remarks is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling thereon will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Harris
(2×)
Ed. 2d 264, 264-65 , 104 S. Ct. 287, 288 (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).) While opinions joined in by two Supreme Court justices may have some persuasive value, they are not, without more, adequate ground for reconsideration of binding precedent.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Spreitzer
Ed. 2d 264, 264-65 , 104 S. Ct. 287, 287-88 (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari, joined by Brennan, J.).) While opinions which express the views of two Supreme Court justices may have some persuasive value, they are not, without more, an adequate ground for the reconsideration of binding precedent.
discussed
Cited "see"
Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Constructora Lluch, Inc., and Cna Casualty of Puerto Rico, Inc.
(2×)
See Meyers v. Moody, 693 F.2d 1196, 1220-21 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 920 , 104 S.Ct. 287 , 78 L.Ed.2d 264 (1983); see also Johnson v. National Sea Prods., Ltd., 35 F.3d 626, 631 (1st Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rubinstein v. Collins
(2×)
See Meyers v. Moody, 693 F.2d 1196, 1214 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 920 , 104 S.Ct. 287 , 78 L.Ed.2d 264 (1983) (observing that common law fraud claim in Texas contains all of the elements of a Rule 10b-5 claim plus additional ones); see also Trenholm, 646 S.W.2d at 930 -(laying out elements of Texas common law fraud claim); Jackson v. Speer, 974 F.2d 676, 679 (5th Cir.1992) (same). 55 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Clark v. Milam
(2×)
See Meyers v. Moody, 693 F.2d 1196 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 920 , 104 S.Ct. 287 , 78 L.Ed.2d 264 (1983); Durish v. Uselton, 763 F.Supp. 192 (N.D.Tex.1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Polycast Technology Corp. v. Uniroyal, Inc.
(2×)
See Meyers v. Moody, 693 F.2d 1196, 1220 (5th Cir.1982), reh’g denied, 701 F.2d 173 , cert. denied, 464 U.S. 920 , 104 S.Ct. 287 , 78 L.Ed.2d 264 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
James v. Nico Energy Corp.
(2×)
See Meyers v. Moody, 693 F.2d 1196, 1214 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 920 , 104 S.Ct. 287 , 78 L.Ed.2d 264 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
James v. Nico Energy Corp.
(2×)
See Meyers v. Moody, 693 F.2d 1196, 1214 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 920 , 104 S.Ct. 287 , 78 L.Ed.2d 264 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Golden State TD Investments, LLC v. Andrews Kurth LLP (In re California TD Investments, LLC)
(2×)
See, e.g., Meyers v. Moody, 693 F.2d 1196, 1208 (5th Cir.1982) (“A party may not invoke an es-toppel for the purpose of shielding himself from the results of his own fraud, dereliction of duty, or other inequitable conduct.”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 920 , 104 S.Ct. 287 , 78 L.Ed.2d 264 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Federal Deposit Insurance ex rel. American Diversified Savings Bank v. O'Melveny & Meyers
(2×)
See, e.g., Meyers v. Moody, 693 F.2d 1196, 1208 (5th Cir.1982) (“A party may not invoke an estoppel for the purpose of shielding himself from the results of his own fraud, dereliction of duty, or other inequitable conduct.”), cert . denied, 464 U.S. 920 , 104 S.Ct. 287 , 78 L.Ed.2d 264 (1983). 8 We conclude that ADSB has a corporate identity distinct from that of its wrongdoing officers.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, As Receiver v. O'melveny & Meyers
(2×)
See, e.g., Meyers v. Moody, 693 F.2d 1196, 1208 (5th Cir.1982) ("A party may not invoke an estoppel for the purpose of shielding himself from the results of his own fraud, dereliction of duty, or other inequitable conduct."), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 920 , 104 S.Ct. 287 , 78 L.Ed.2d 264 (1983). 8 We conclude that ADSB has a corporate identity distinct from that of its wrongdoing officers.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Dewey E. Coleman v. Henry Risley, Warden, Montana State Prison, and Michael T. Greely, Attorney General for the State of Montana
(4×)
See also Jones v. Illinois, 464 U.S. 920 , 104 S.Ct. 287 , 78 L.Ed.2d 264 (1983) (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of cert.) 40 The Fifth and the Eleventh Circuits have decided cases involving claims by defendants that a death penalty statute unconstitutionally placed on them the burden of persuasion on whether the mitigating circumstances outweighed the aggravating ones.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Moody
v.
Meyers
v.
Meyers
No. 82-2091.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 17, 1983.
Cited by 6 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (4) · Fifth Circuit (2)
C. A. 5th Cir. Motions of Washington Legal Foundation, American Conservative Union et al., and Citizens Economic Foundation for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.