Patterson v. Adan’s Empirical Analysis
1912
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently May 2005 · most notably Malley v. American Indemnity Co. (1929), Jeppesen v. Swanson (1955)
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 22 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 Connolly v. Bolster · Sanders v. Frankfort Marine, Accident & Plate Glass Insurance · Frye v. Bath Gas & Electric Co. · Anoka Lumber Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. · Travellers Insurance v. Moses
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * The company substituted its interests and its judgment for that of the assured in the action. * * * “* * * j>y undertaking the defense the company elected to treat plaintiff’s cause of action, if he had any, as covered by its contract; and when it substituted itself and its judgment for that of the defendant, both plaintiff and defendant have a right to insist that the final judgment establishes the liability and debt of the company to' the assured. The undertaking to defend is of no value, and may be of great danger, to the assured, where he thus abandons all control of the suit to the company, if it does not mean that whatever liability is established shall be discharged.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““In a policy such as this, where the company has come into the litigation and assumed exclusive control thereof under its contract, it recognizes a liability, if it fails to defend successfully, to pay the assured the amount of the judgment it so permits to be established, not exceeding the sum stipulated in the policy, and also that, as to the plaintiff, it should be considered that such judgment is a debt due the assured from the company, and not dependent on any contingency.””
2 later decisions 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.