green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.7 score
“court, unquestionably, has the right to relieve a party of his judicial admission if it appears that the admitted fact is clearly untrue and that the party was laboring under a mistake when he made the admission.”
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Wheatley v. Wood
court, unquestionably, has the right to relieve a party of his judicial admission if it appears that the admitted fact is clearly untrue and that the party was laboring under a mistake when he made the admission.
discussed
Cited "see"
Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc. v. Bruton
(2×)
See New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Waller, 4th Cir., 323 F.2d 20, 24 (1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 963 , 84 S.Ct. 1124 , 11 L.Ed.2d 981 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Norman Z. Flick and Lowell G. Maynard, United States of America v. Norman Z. Flick and Lowell G. Maynard
(2×)
See United States v. Alger, 325 F.2d 502, 503 (7th Cir.1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 963 , 84 S.Ct. 1124 , 11 L.Ed.2d 981 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State of Arizona v. Shamrock Foods Company, an Arizona Corporation and Beatrice Foods Company, an Illinois Corporation, Darryll J. Alton v. Shamrock Foods Company, an Arizona Corporation, and Beatrice Foods Company, an Illinois Corporation
(2×)
Co., 667 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1982); see also New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Waller, 323 F.2d 20, 24-25 (4th Cir.1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 963 , 84 S.Ct. 1124 , 11 L.Ed.2d 981 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Arizona v. Shamrock Foods Co.
(2×)
Co., 667 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1982); see also New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Waller, 323 F.2d 20, 24-25 (4th Cir.1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 963 , 84 S.Ct. 1124 , 11 L.Ed.2d 981 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
L & M Professional Consultants, Inc. v. Ferreira
(See City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders (1982) 32 Cal.3d 60, 71-72 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 646 P.2d 835 ]; Linggi v. Garovotti, supra, 45 Cal.2d at pp. 23-26; 2A Nichols on Eminent Domain, supra, § 7.5154.) “Once it is determined that the taking is for a public purpose, the fact that private persons may receive benefit is not sufficient to take away from the enterprise the characteristics of a public purpose. [Citations.]” (Rede velopment Agency v. Hayes (1954) 122 Cal.App.2d 777, 804 [ 266 P.2d 105 ], cert. den., 348 U.S. 897 [ 99 L.Ed. 705 , 75 S.Ct. 214 ]; see, e.g., County of Los Angele…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Contreras
See also State v. Kline, 266 Minn. 372 , 124 N.W. 2d 416 , cert. denied, 376 U.S. 962 , 84 S.Ct. 1124 , 11 L.Ed.2d 980 ; Hutchinson v. State, 248 Ind. 226 , 225 N.E.2d 828 ; State v. Hanks, 252 Wis. 414, 31 N.W.2d 596 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Waller
v.
New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
v.
New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
No. 829.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 30, 1964.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.