Wallace Good v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company
Cases that cite this one
44 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Pulcinello v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001)
- Wolf v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003)
- Mastroni-Mucker v. Allstate Insurance (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009)
- Larry McCall Cross-Appellant v. Gayle Franzen, Cross-Appellees (7th Cir. 1985)
- NEWMARK v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY (District Court, D. New Jersey 2022)
- FROMPOVICZ v. NIAGARA BOTTLING, LLC (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2020)
- Ezekiel Daniel v. Shamar Pemberton and Carty Enterprises (Superior Court of The Virgin Islands 2020)
- Zong v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. (3d Cir. 2015)
- Stasen ex rel. Mentor Special Situation Fund v. Sager (In re Sager) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2014)
- Colella v. University of Pittsburgh (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 2008)
- Jennings v. Reed (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005)
- Forte Sports, Inc. v. Toy Airplane Gliders of America, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2004)
- Millgard Corp. v. White Oak Corp. (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2002)
- Josh Nelson v. American Dredging Company and Signal Mutual Insurance Co. (3d Cir. 1998)
- Nelson v. Amer Dredging Co (3d Cir. 1998)
- Storms v. O'Malley (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas 1998)
- Excelsior Insurance v. Pennsbury Pain Center (District Court, D. New Jersey 1996)
- Anschutz v. Radiology Associates of Mansfield, Inc. (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1993)
- Ballato v. General Electric (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1993)
- Bontigao v. Villanova University (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1992)
- In re Conston Corp., Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1991)
- Giles v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad (District Court, E.D. Texas 1989)
- In re Paolino (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1988)
- In re Paolino (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1987)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
*990 OPINION OF THE COURT
When this action for damages for personal injuries under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act 1 was called for trial settlement discussions ensued between counsel in the presence of the judge and the plaintiff personally. Defendant’s counsel offered to pay the amount which the judge recommended in settlement. That evening after discussion with his client plaintiff’s counsel telephoned acceptance of the offer to defendant’s counsel. It is not disputed and indeed is conceded that the offer was made, that it was accepted and that plaintiff’s counsel had authority to negotiate for a settlement, and to accept defendant’s offer and settle the case.
Shortly afterward, when defendant transmitted the customary form of release, plaintiff refused to sign it and disavowed the settlement. Although the case had been removed from the calendar because plaintiff’s counsel had already notified the clerk of the district court of the settlement, the case was then restored to the calendar. A jury trial resulted in a verdict substantially in excess of the amount of the settlement. The district court ultimately entered the judgment N.O.Y. in favor of the defendant on the ground that the settlement barred the recovery.
The settlement agreement which was- entered into by duly authorized counsel expressed the intention to settle the ease for the agreed amount and was valid and binding despite the absence of any writing or formality. See Main Line Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 298 F.2d 801 (3 Cir.) cert. denied, 370 U.S. 939, 82 S.Ct. 1585, 8 L.Ed.2d 807 (1962). The tender of a release did not reopen the agreement or make its execution a condition to the settlement itself. See Main Line Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., supra.
The fact that this action was brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act does not remove it from the realm of the law of contracts. The obligation to remain bound by a valid agreement of settlement duly entered into by counsel with the authority of his client is one which pervades the law and applies to injured railroad employees as well as all other contracting parties.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
. 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.