minority rule in Utah

10 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2008 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Lux v. Commonwealthgreen vactapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Lux v. Commonwealth, 24 Va.App. 561 , 484 S.E.2d 145, 150-51 (1997) (discussing cases addressing imputed disqualification of entire prosecutor’s office). ¶ 17 If Utah were to adopt the minority view, the entire County Attorney’s office would automatically be disqualified and prejudice against McClellan would be presumed. 2008Lux v. Commonwealth, 24 Va.App. 561 , 484 S.E.2d 145, 150-51 (1997) (discussing cases addressing imputed disqualification of entire prosecutor’s office). ¶ 17 If Utah were to adopt the minority view, the entire County Attorney’s office would automatically be disqualified and prejudice against McClellan would be presumed.	1	1
United States v. McElhineygreen ca10 · 2001 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008While we recognize that the trial court attempted to counterbalance the statement directed to the minority juror with the instruction "that no juror is expected to yield a conscientious conviction he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the evidence," the knowledge that one juror stood alone against the others made this statement insufficient to counterbalance fully the prior statements urging acquiescence. 132 In United States v. McKinney, 822 F.2d 946 (10th Cir.1987), the Tenth Circuit held otherwise, upholding language directed to the minority where the instruction contained suffic	1	1
State v. Thomasgreen utah · 1989 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008State v. Thomas, 777 P.2d 445, 447-48 (Utah 1989).	1	1
United States v. George Raymond Dybagreen ca10 · 1977 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008While we recognize that the trial court attempted to counterbalance the statement directed to the minority juror with the instruction "that no juror is expected to yield a conscientious conviction he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the evidence," the knowledge that one juror stood alone against the others made this statement insufficient to counterbalance fully the prior statements urging acquiescence. 132 In United States v. McKinney, 822 F.2d 946 (10th Cir.1987), the Tenth Circuit held otherwise, upholding language directed to the minority where the instruction contained suffic	1	1
Thornal v. Cargill, Inc.green tex · 1979 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 1 sentence 1988The minority rule, as adopted by the Alaska Supreme Court in Isaacson, states, “[W]hen the trial court’s judgment is erroneous, the judgment of the [appellate court] must take its place and plaintiff is entitled to interest from the date of the *987 erroneous judgment.” 640 P.2d at 817 (quoting Thornal v. Cargill, Inc., 587 S.W.2d 384, 385 (Tex.1979).	1	1
Pascack Valley Bank & Trust Co. v. Ritar Ford Sales, Inc.green connappct · 1972 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988See also Pascaek Valley Bank and Trust Co. v. Ritar Ford Sales, Inc., 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 646 , 295 A.2d 667 (1972). 1988One reason these jurisdictions follow the minority rule is that they do not consider responsibility for a delay of payment as a factor in making an interest award; rather the interest award is in the form of compensation for the period that plaintiff remains “less than whole.” Farnsworth v. Steiner, 638 P.2d 181, 185 (Alaska 1981); Pascack Valley, 295 A.2d at 668 .	1	1
Farnsworth v. Steinergreen alaska · 1981 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 1 sentence 1988One reason these jurisdictions follow the minority rule is that they do not consider responsibility for a delay of payment as a factor in making an interest award; rather the interest award is in the form of compensation for the period that plaintiff remains “less than whole.” Farnsworth v. Steiner, 638 P.2d 181, 185 (Alaska 1981); Pascack Valley, 295 A.2d at 668 .	1	1
United States v. Peter Reagreen ca2 · 1982 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983 1 sentence 1983See United States v. Rea, 678 F.2d 382 (2nd Cir.1982); United States v. Bradley, 571 F.2d 787 (4th Cir.1978); State v. Fogarty, Mont., 610 P.2d 140 (1980); State v. Gansz, Fla.App., 297 So.2d 614 (1974); State v. Cullison, Iowa, 173 N.W.2d 533 (1970).	1	1
Brown v. Gossergreen kyctapphigh · 1953 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1954–1954 2 sentences 1954See Courtney v. Courtney, supra, note 2 , and Brown v. Gosser, Ky., 262 S.W.2d 480, 482 , where it is said at pages 482 and 483 of the Southwestern Reporter that: “The minority rule received its greatest impetus from the dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan, concurred in by Justices Holmes and Hughes, in the case of Thompson v. Thompson, 1910, 218 U.S. 611 , 31 S.Ct. 111, 114 , 54 E.Ed. 1180, 30 L.R.A..N.S., 1153, 21 Ann.Cas. 921. 1954NOTES [1] See section 68-3-2, U.C.A. 1953, and cases to that effect cited in the note thereto. [2] This difference in statutory construction is analyzed in Courtney v. Courtney, 184 Okl. 395 , 87 P.2d 660 . [3] See Courtney v. Courtney, supra, note 2 , and Brown v. Gosser, Ky., 262 S.W.2d 480, 482 , where it is said at pages 482 and 483 of the Southwestern Reporter that: "The minority rule received its greatest impetus from the dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan, concurred in by Justices Holmes and Hughes, in the case of Thompson v. Thompson, 1910, 218 U.S. 611 , 31 S.Ct. 111, 114 , 54 L.Ed.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (26)

Case	Cited	Years
United States v. Wesley R. McKinney green ca10 · 1987 2 sentences 2008While we recognize that the trial court attempted to counterbalance the statement directed to the minority juror with the instruction "that no juror is expected to yield a conscientious conviction he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the evidence," the knowledge that one juror stood alone against the others made this statement insufficient to counterbalance fully the prior statements urging acquiescence. 132 In United States v. McKinney, 822 F.2d 946 (10th Cir.1987), the Tenth Circuit held otherwise, upholding language directed to the minority where the instruction contained suffic 2008While we recognize that the trial court attempted to counterbalance the statement directed to the minority juror with the instruction "that no juror is expected to yield a conscientious conviction he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the evidence," the knowledge that one juror stood alone against the others made this statement insufficient to counterbalance fully the prior statements urging acquiescence. 132 In United States v. McKinney, 822 F.2d 946 (10th Cir.1987), the Tenth Circuit held otherwise, upholding language directed to the minority where the instruction contained suffic	1	2008–2008
Isaacson Structural Steel Co. v. Armco Steel Corp. green alaska · 1982 1 sentence 1988The minority rule, as adopted by the Alaska Supreme Court in Isaacson, states, “[W]hen the trial court’s judgment is erroneous, the judgment of the [appellate court] must take its place and plaintiff is entitled to interest from the date of the *987 erroneous judgment.” 640 P.2d at 817 (quoting Thornal v. Cargill, Inc., 587 S.W.2d 384, 385 (Tex.1979).	1	1988–1988
State v. Gansz green fladistctapp · 1974 1 sentence 1983See United States v. Rea, 678 F.2d 382 (2nd Cir.1982); United States v. Bradley, 571 F.2d 787 (4th Cir.1978); State v. Fogarty, Mont., 610 P.2d 140 (1980); State v. Gansz, Fla.App., 297 So.2d 614 (1974); State v. Cullison, Iowa, 173 N.W.2d 533 (1970).	1	1983–1983
State v. Cullison green iowa · 1970 1 sentence 1983See United States v. Rea, 678 F.2d 382 (2nd Cir.1982); United States v. Bradley, 571 F.2d 787 (4th Cir.1978); State v. Fogarty, Mont., 610 P.2d 140 (1980); State v. Gansz, Fla.App., 297 So.2d 614 (1974); State v. Cullison, Iowa, 173 N.W.2d 533 (1970).	1	1983–1983
United States v. George L. Bradley green ca4 · 1978 1 sentence 1983See United States v. Rea, 678 F.2d 382 (2nd Cir.1982); United States v. Bradley, 571 F.2d 787 (4th Cir.1978); State v. Fogarty, Mont., 610 P.2d 140 (1980); State v. Gansz, Fla.App., 297 So.2d 614 (1974); State v. Cullison, Iowa, 173 N.W.2d 533 (1970).	1	1983–1983
State v. Fogarty red mont · 1980 1 sentence 1983See United States v. Rea, 678 F.2d 382 (2nd Cir.1982); United States v. Bradley, 571 F.2d 787 (4th Cir.1978); State v. Fogarty, Mont., 610 P.2d 140 (1980); State v. Gansz, Fla.App., 297 So.2d 614 (1974); State v. Cullison, Iowa, 173 N.W.2d 533 (1970).	1	1983–1983
Rains v. Rains green colo · 1935 2 sentences 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23	1	1954–1954
Kalamian v. Kalamian green conn · 1927 2 sentences 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23	1	1954–1954
Thompson v. Thompson green scotus · 1910 2 sentences 1954See Courtney v. Courtney, supra, note 2 , and Brown v. Gosser, Ky., 262 S.W.2d 480, 482 , where it is said at pages 482 and 483 of the Southwestern Reporter that: “The minority rule received its greatest impetus from the dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan, concurred in by Justices Holmes and Hughes, in the case of Thompson v. Thompson, 1910, 218 U.S. 611 , 31 S.Ct. 111, 114 , 54 E.Ed. 1180, 30 L.R.A..N.S., 1153, 21 Ann.Cas. 921. 1954See Courtney v. Courtney, supra, note 2 , and Brown v. Gosser, Ky., 262 S.W.2d 480, 482 , where it is said at pages 482 and 483 of the Southwestern Reporter that: “The minority rule received its greatest impetus from the dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan, concurred in by Justices Holmes and Hughes, in the case of Thompson v. Thompson, 1910, 218 U.S. 611 , 31 S.Ct. 111, 114 , 54 E.Ed. 1180, 30 L.R.A..N.S., 1153, 21 Ann.Cas. 921.	1	1954–1954
Waterman v. Lebanon green nh · 1915 2 sentences 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23	1	1954–1954
Gilman v. Gilman neutral nh · 1915 2 sentences 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23	1	1954–1954
Roberts v. . Roberts neutral nc · 1923 2 sentences 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23	1	1954–1954
Bennett v. Bennett green ala · 1932 2 sentences 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23	1	1954–1954
Katzenberg v. Katzenberg green ark · 1931 2 sentences 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23	1	1954–1954
Fontaine v. Fontaine green wis · 1931 2 sentences 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23	1	1954–1954
Courtney v. Courtney green okla · 1938 2 sentences 1954V “It is said in the case of Courtney v. Courtney, 1938, 184 Okl. 395 , 87 P.2d 660 , that nine states, in addition to Oklahoma, have adopted the minority rule. 1954V “It is said in the case of Courtney v. Courtney, 1938, 184 Okl. 395 , 87 P.2d 660 , that nine states, in addition to Oklahoma, have adopted the minority rule.	1	1954–1954
Prosser v. Prosser green · 1920 2 sentences 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23	1	1954–1954
Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice green nd · 1932 2 sentences 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23 1954They are: Alabama, Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335 , 140 So. 378 ; Arkansas, Katzenberg v. Katzenberg, 183 Ark. 626 , 37 S.W.2d 696 ; Connecticut, Kalamian v. Kalamian, 107 Conn. 86 , 139 A. 635 ; Colorado, Rains v. Rains, 97 Colo. 19 , 46 P.2d 740 ; New Hampshire, Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N.H. 4 , 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 907 ; North Carolina, Roberts v. Roberts, 185 N.C. 566 , 118 S.E. 9 , 29 A.L.R. 1479 ; South Carolina, Prosser v. Prosser, 114 S.C. 45 , 102 S.E. 787 ; North Dakota, Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191 , 242 N.W. 526 ; and Wisconsin, Fontaine v. Fontaine, 205 Wis. 570 , 23	1	1954–1954
White v. Pinney green utah · 1940 2 sentences 1951In our statement accepting that standard, we neither called the assumption of negligence from proof of (a) and (b) a “presumption” or an “inference,” but we did state on page 172 of 100 Utah, on page 547 of 111 P. 2d: “That the question was for the jury where it could not be said as a matter of law that the explanation for the mishap was so satisfactory or complete as to overcome the INFERENCE of negligence which the event bespeaks was recently held by this court in White v. Pinney, [ 99 Utah 484 ] 108 P. 2d 249 . 106 “Thus in determining the fact of negligence the jury may consider the INFER 1951In our statement accepting that standard, we neither called the assumption of negligence from proof of (a) and (b) a “presumption” or an “inference,” but we did state on page 172 of 100 Utah, on page 547 of 111 P. 2d: “That the question was for the jury where it could not be said as a matter of law that the explanation for the mishap was so satisfactory or complete as to overcome the INFERENCE of negligence which the event bespeaks was recently held by this court in White v. Pinney, [ 99 Utah 484 ] 108 P. 2d 249 . 106 “Thus in determining the fact of negligence the jury may consider the INFER	1	1951–1951
Montgomery v. Rief green utah · 1897 2 sentences 1949While certain broad language in the earlier cases in this court might lend some support to the minority rule, see Montgomery v. Rief, 15 Utah 495 , 50 P. 623 , and Smith v. Bowman, 32 Utah 33 , 88 P. 687 , 9 L. 1949While certain broad language in the earlier cases in this court might lend some support to the minority rule, see Montgomery v. Rief, 15 Utah 495 , 50 P. 623 , and Smith v. Bowman, 32 Utah 33 , 88 P. 687 , 9 L.	1	1949–1949
Smith v. Bowman green utah · 1907 2 sentences 1949While certain broad language in the earlier cases in this court might lend some support to the minority rule, see Montgomery v. Rief, 15 Utah 495 , 50 P. 623 , and Smith v. Bowman, 32 Utah 33 , 88 P. 687 , 9 L. 1949While certain broad language in the earlier cases in this court might lend some support to the minority rule, see Montgomery v. Rief, 15 Utah 495 , 50 P. 623 , and Smith v. Bowman, 32 Utah 33 , 88 P. 687 , 9 L.	1	1949–1949
Woodsville Guaranty Savings Bank v. Rogers neutral vt · 1909	1	1933–1933
Server v. Lang neutral vt · 1918	1	1933–1933
Mangold v. Barlow neutral · 1884	1	1930–1930
Long v. Hawken green md · 1911	1	1924–1924
Hammons v. Superior Court of Los Angeles green calctapp · 1923	1	1924–1924

Where else courts name it

WA 44 (1920–2021) CA 41 (1922–2023) VT 33 (1940–2025) TN 30 (1917–2018) TX 28 (1922–2023) VA 25 (1918–2024) OR 25 (1921–2021) OK 24 (1922–2006) AZ 23 (1946–2023) MI 22 (1927–2023) AR 22 (1923–2006) CO 22 (1897–2021) MD 22 (1960–2013) IL 20 (1903–2017) AL 20 (1913–2012) NJ 20 (1950–2009) MO 20 (1928–2018) FL 19 (1943–2015) WV 19 (1910–2023) IA 19 (1926–2018) ID 19 (1932–2019) WI 17 (1928–2017) SD 17 (1918–2015) NY 17 (1934–2010) MT 16 (1917–2023) KS 16 (1904–2017) DE 16 (1950–2026) OH 15 (1923–2015) NM 15 (1916–2000) LA 15 (1933–2019) SC 14 (1932–2025) KY 13 (1923–2021) AK 13 (1979–2024) MS 13 (1930–2019) CT 11 (1924–2025) UT 10 (1924–2008) ME 9 (1956–2022) PA 9 (1942–2015) NC 9 (1945–2009) HI 8 (1961–2025) DC 8 (1970–2015) IN 8 (1947–2000) WY 7 (1954–2019) NE 7 (1961–2002) NH 7 (1930–2009) RI 7 (1970–2013) VI 6 (1986–2016) ND 5 (1954–2011) GA 5 (1933–2003) NV 5 (1921–2007) MA 4 (1959–2006) MN 3 (1985–2011) PR 3 (1947–1955) GU 2 (2023–2024)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check