Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 141 Tex. 479 - Castillo v. Canales

Castillo v. Canales’s Empirical Analysis

1943

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably McCain v. Yost (1955), Fairfield Insurance Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP (2008)

33 state decisions

8019431950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Schonfield v. Turner · Price v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor

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

  1. ““Any person may be admitted to beneficial, or general, or social membership in any society in such manner and upon such showing of eligibility as the laws of the society may provide, and any beneficial member may direct any benefit to be paid to such person or persons, entity, or interest as may be permitted by the laws of the society * * *.” (Emphasis ours.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““Prior to the adoption of the statute above referred to regulating fraternal benefit societies, it was the public policy or ‘law’ of this State, with few exceptions, that no one could be named as a beneficiary in a life insurance policy who did not have an insurable interest in the life of the insured. As previously stated, the Legislature had the right to change this public policy. By the statute above referred to that public policy was changed so that it then became the ‘law’ of this State that a member of a fraternal benefit society, with the consent of the society, as evidenced by its laws could name as beneficiary in a life insurance policy whomsoever he pleased, and regardless of whether the named beneficiary had an insurable interest in the life of the insured.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.