Trinity Universal Ins. v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
107 F.2d 857 · 1939
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 1983
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 State Ex Rel. Laundry, Inc. v. Public Service Commission · Jaloff v. United Auto Indemnity Exchange · Whitlock v. United States Inter-Insurance Ass'n · Liberty Mut. Ins. v. McDonald · Hindel v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is a general rule of law that an insurance policy must be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties so far as such intention can be discovered from the language of the policy and where the meaning of an insurance policy is fairly susceptible of two constructions, it should be construed most strongly in favor of the policy holder. Jaloff v. United Auto Indemnity Exchange, 120 Or. 381 , 250 P. 717 ; Whitlock v. United States Inter-Insurance Ass’n, 138 Or. 383 , 6 P.2d 1088 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Appellant contends that the phrase pursuant to the certificate of convenience and necessity’ means in effect, fin accordance with,’ and ‘as limited by any and all provisions contained in the certificate of convenience and necessity.’ If there were such a limitation there would he no coverage of the motor vehicle that was being operated by the insured at the time of the collision, . . . “To construe this phrase as interpreted by appellant would be a strict construction and would not be in conformity with the general intent and purpose of the rules of the Commission contained in the endorsement or rider. A more reasonable and, we think, the proper interpretation is, ‘pursuant,’ in the sense of fiicting or done in consequence’ of the permit of convenience and necessity, and in the prosecution of the business authorized therein. . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Briggs v. Burk
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.