Raskob v. Sanchez’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
8 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Hovet v. Allstate Insurance (2004), Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuque (2002)
8 district · 28 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 Breeden v. Wilson · Lopez v. Townsend · Allstate Insurance v. Jensen · England Ex Rel. Shipman v. New Mexico State Highway Commission · Anchor Equities, Ltd. v. Pacific Coast American
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he general rule is that there is no privity between an injured party and the insurer of the negligent defendant in the absence of a contractual provision or statute or ordinance to the contrary.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Walker v. Spina · Jolley v. AEGIS“The purpose of compulsory liability insurance is unlike that of indemnification insurance, which simply protects the owner of the vehicle or operator from loss. It generally exists solely for the benefit of the insured. Compulsory liability insurance, on the other hand, is intended to provide a benefit to the general public. Our Act cannot be read as only providing indemnification thereby precluding the joinder of [the defendant’s insurer]____ Finally, we have previously distinguished an insurance company’s liability to pay, which arises after judgment against its insured, from the right to sue the company.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“an insurance policy procured by force of legislative enactment inures to the benefit of any injured member of the public, and the insurance company is a proper party defendant in a suit for damages by that injured party, unless the statute ... in its terms negatives the idea of such joinder.”
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.