Legal Opinion · Dissent

Martin v. Hickenlooper

Utah Supreme Court

Decided August 4, 1936No. 5424Published

1DissentMoffat, Justice

The law relating to subrogation was reviewed in the former opinion in this case [90 Utah 130, 40 P. (2d) 213], and in the present prevailing opinion is further reviewed and the cases somewhat classified and what is termed a “development” suggested.

In my view, this case, as indicated in the former opinion, is not a case for the application of the doctrine of subrogation, unless when subrogation is invoked law flies out of the window and “judicial discretion” or the “dictates of justice” preempt the whole field, and the “soul of justice, equity and benevolence,” guided by the “conscience of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. MiddleportSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. Martin v. HickenlooperUtah Supreme Court · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API