Adams v. Bartel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “■ “The apparent purpose sought to be achieved by defendant in the sale of this policy was to insure plaintiff against all risks arising out of the operation of the automobile described in the policy and, in addition, any automobile he acquired to replace it, or acquires as an added automobile where defendant is the insurer of all his family automobiles. The policy is obviously designed to meet the liability insurance needs of today’s two- or more-car families who customarily trade in and replace family automobiles quite frequently. Surely it can also be said that this type of automatic insurance coverage was designed to enable insurance companies, such as defendant, to sell all of the automobile liability insurance needed by a two-car family.” Quaderer v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Company, 263 Minn. 383 , 116 N.W.2d 605 , at pages 608-609 (1962).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nodak Mutual Insurance Company v. Loeffler

2. ““It is our opinion that, taking the automatic coverage provision in its entirety, it was intended to apply to any other automobile acquired by the assured who owned one or more automobiles, provided that all the automobiles, whether one or more, then owned by him were insured by the defendant corporation. This construction is made obvious also when we consider the quoted clause in connection with another condition of the automatic coverage provision, to the effect that if all the automobiles owned by the assured are not covered by insurance in the defendant company, the automatic coverage does not apply except to an automobile that replaces one insured by the defendant.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 39 Wis. 2d 224 - Luckett v. Cowser

3. ““In construing the terms of an automobile insurance policy, it must be kept in mind that the public has an interest in having automobiles covered by liability insurance. Quaderer v. Integrity Mutual Ins. Co., 263 Minn. 383 , 116 N.W.2d 605 . It is also a well-settled rule of construction that any ambiguous terms of. an insurance policy are to be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer who is charged with having chosen the language of the policy.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nodak Mutual Insurance Company v. Loeffler