Rodriguez v. Windsor Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Montano v. Allstate Indemnity Co. (2004), Phoenix Indemnity Insurance v. Pulis (2000)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 36 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 Chavez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · Schmick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · Lopez Ex Rel. Estate of Lopez v. Foundation Reserve Insurance · Sanchez v. Herrera · Jimenez v. Foundation Reserve Insurance
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Despite the strength of the judicial policy ... as discussed in, e.g., Jimenez, 107 N.M. at 324-26 , 757 P.2d at 794-96 , it may be possible to give effect to a truly unambiguous antistacking clause, provided it plainly notifies the insured that only one premium has been charged for one insurance coverage, that the coverage provides personal accident insurance that cannot be stacked regardless of the number of vehicles covered by the policy, and that the insured should bear this feature in mind when purchasing insurance.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[P]remium structures for uninsured motorist benefits in multi-car policies that purport to avoid a separate charge for the coverage with respect to each car ... lay[ ] heavy stress on the rationale in many of our cases predicating stacking, in significant part, on the insured’s payment of multiple premiums for multiple coverages — i.e., a separate premium for the uninsured motorist coverage “on” each car insured under the policy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Our past cases have evolved a strong judicial policy, rooted in this state’s uninsured motorists insurance statute (NMSA 1978, Section 66-5-301[1983]), favoring stacking in order that a person injured by an uninsured ... motorist may receive compensation for his or her damages to the extent of the insurance purchased for his or her protection.”
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.