Great Eastern Casualty Co. v. Robins’s Empirical Analysis
1914
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently October 1954 · most notably Janney v. Scranton Life Insurance (1934), Bankson v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n (1945)
4 federal appellate · 38 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 160 Mo. App. 236 - Ramsey v. General Accident, Fire & Life Insurance · Metropolitan Plate Glass & Casualty Insurance v. Hawes' Extx. · Breil v. Claus Groth Plattdutschen Vereen
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The testimony discloses the course of treatment to which plaintiff was subjected while in the sanatorium at Denver. He was continuously under the treatment of physicians, and was confined, to the house, except that he was out for a short time daily, under the direction of the physician, for the purpose of getting sunshine and fresh air. “The court instructed the jury that ‘a continuous confinement within the meaning of this instruction does not mean that the plaintiff, in order to be entitled to this benefit, must have actually been confined within the walls of a house every minute or hour,’ but that ‘the mere fact that he went out occasionally and at stated intervals for the purpose of taking exercise and fresh air, under the instructions of his physician, would not be sufficient to prevent plaintiff from recovering in this action.’ “This instruction was given over the objection of the defendants, and the ruling is assigned as error. That is the principal ground urged here for reversal. “We are of the opinion that the court correctly interpreted the contract, and that the instruction complained of was not in conflict with the law which controls. Cases cited on the brief fully sustain that view: Jennings v. Brotherhood, 44 Colo. 68 , 96 Pac. 982, 130 Am. St. 109, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 109; Breil v. Claus, 84 Neb. 155, 120 N. W. 905 , 18 Ann. Cas. 1110, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 359; Metropolitan Plate Glass & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Hawes, 150 Ky. 52 , 149 S. W. 1110 , 42 L. R. A. (N. ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““If any sickness, contracted and beginning' after this policy has been in continuous force for thirty days from this date, shall totally disable and prevent the insured from performing any and every duty pertaining to any and every kind of business or occupation, and shall necessarily and continuously confine him within the house, where he shall be regularly visited by a licensed physician, the .company will pay for the period of such confinement, not exceeding six months, benefit at the rate per month of one hundred dollars.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“’ “That a person ‘must remain constantly in the house’ does not necessarily mean that one must- remain perpetually within the four walls of a house. ””
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.