Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 129 U.S. 252 - Carr v. Hamilton

Carr v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis

129 U.S. 252 · 1889

Citation profile

163
cited by 163 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
September 2014
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 11 district · 56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 163 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2014 · most notably Scott v. Armstrong (1892), Central Trust Co. v. Chicago Auditorium Ass'n (1916)

55 federal appellate · 11 district · 56 state decisions — followed in 18 states

31018891890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Scammon v. Kimball · Newcomb v. . Almy · Life Ass'n of America v. Levy · 16 La. Ann. 250 - Spinney v. Hyde

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

  1. ““By that act the company becomes civiliter mortuus, Its business is brought to an absolute end, and the policy holders become creditors to an amount equal to the equitable value of their respective policies, and entitled to participate pro rata in its assets.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Where á holder of a life policy borrows money of his insurer, it will he presumed, prima facie, that he does so on the faith of the insurance, and in expectation of possibly meeting his own obligation to the company by that of the company to him, and that the case is one of mutual credit, and entitled to the privilege of compensation or set-off whenever the mutual liquidation of the demands is judicially decreed on the insolvency of the company. The ease of Scammon v. Kimball, 92 U. S. 362 , is in concurrence with this view. It was there held that a banker, having insurance in a company, which was rendered utterly insolvent by the great Chicago fire of 1871, by which the banker’s insured property was consumed with the rest, had a right to set up the amount of his insurance against money of the company in his hands on deposit. The insurance was not a debt due at the time of the insolvency. It became due afterwards, when the banker had performed all the conditions required in such eases.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We are inclined to the view that where the holder of a life insurance policy borrows money of his insurer, it will be presumed, prima facie, that he does so on the faith of the insurance and in the expectation of possibly meeting his own obligation to the company by that of the company to him, and that the case is one of mutual credits, and-entitled’to the privilege of compensation or set-off whenever the mutual liquidation of the demands is judicially decreed on the insolvency of the company.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.