Britt v. Phoenix Indemnity Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 10 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Wilson v. Denver (1998), Wendell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (1999)
3 federal appellate · 10 district · 45 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 Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison · Bender v. Bender · Chavez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · Romero v. Dairyland Insurance · Kish v. Central National Insurance Group
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] court first considers whether there is a sufficient causal nexus between the use of the uninsured vehicle and the resulting harm. Such a causal nexus requires that the vehicle be an active accessory in causing the injury. If a court finds that there is a sufficient causal nexus, then it should next consider whether an act of independent significance broke the causal link between the use of the vehicle and the harm suffered. Finally, the court must consider whether the use to which the vehicle was put was a normal use of that vehicle. For example, transportation would be a normal use, whereas use of a parked car for a gun rest would not be.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“arose out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the uninsured vehicle”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e conclude that there well may have been a sufficient causal link between the use of the uninsured vehicle for transportation and [the plaintiff]'s injuries. What is less clear, however, is whether the attack by the passengers was an act of independent significance sufficient to break this causal link. ... If, as [the plaintiff] asserted, the unidentified driver intentionally rammed [the vehicle in which the plaintiff was riding] in complicity with the assailants ... in order to facilitate the attack, then the assailants' actions probably did not constitute an "independent intervening cause" sufficient to cut off the nexus between the driver's actions and [the plaintiff]'s injuries. If, on the other hand, the collision was accidental and the assailants developed the intent to attack [the plaintiff] after the collision, perhaps due to hot tempers resulting from the collision, then their actions broke the causal link between the use of the vehicle and [the plaintiff]'s injury.”
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.