Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 Cal. App. 3d 379 - Admiralty Fund v. Peerless Insurance

143 Cal. App. 3d 379 - Admiralty Fund v. Peerless Insurance’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Cox v. Summa Corp. (1985), 692 F. Supp. 1171 - Intel Corp. v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co. (1988)

4 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions

2201983199020002010decided

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

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 80A

Relies on Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Burks v. Lasker · 21 Cal. 3d 313 - Addison v. State of California · 24 Cal. 3d 773 - Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co. · 5 Cal. 3d 112 - Crane v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

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. “Generally, the courts have strictly enforced [discovery of loss] provisions so that neither difficulty in discovering insured losses nor employee concealment excuse the insured's performance.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the dishonest president and other high ranking officers controlled the [company's] operations to such an extent as to preclude discovery, the tolling of a discovery of loss provision should be considered.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “there is no one to oversee those in charge, and so the concepts of diligence in uncovering an insurable loss and employee concealment are inapposite.”
    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.