Glanz v. Gloeckler’s Empirical Analysis
1882
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1919
2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Lemon v. Phœnix Mutual Life Insurance · Otis v. Beckwith · Badgley v. Votrain · North America Life Insurance v. Wilson
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is, indeed, a general rule that a policy, and the money to become due under it, belong, the moment it is issued, to the person or persons named in it as the beneficiary or beneficiaries, and that there is no power in the person procuring the insurance by any act of his, by deed or by will, to transfer to any other person the interest of the person named. Bliss on Life Insurance (2d Ed.) p. 517; Glanz v. Gloeckler, 10 Ill. App. 484 , per McAllister, J.; s. c. 104 Ill. 573 [ 44 Am. Rep. 94 ]; Wilburn v. Wilburn, 83 Ind. 55 ; Ricker v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 27 Minn. 193 [ 6 N. W. 771 , 38 Am. Rep. 289 ]; Charter Oak Ins. Co. v. Brant, 47, Mo. 419 [ 4 Am. Rep. 328 ]; Gould v. Emerson, 99 Mass. 154 [ 96 Am. Dec. 720 ]; Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Weitz, 99 Mass. 157 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.