Whitaker v. DeVilla’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Alan J. Cornblatt, PA v. Barow (1998), Zabilowicz v. Kelsey (2009)
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 Dandridge v. Williams · Minnesota v. Alexander, Secretary of the Army, Et Al. · Greenberg v. Kimmelman · Oswin v. Shaw · Barone v. Department of Human Services
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because non-resident insureds do not contribute to the costs incurred by New Jersey insurers in defending full tort option claims, the Legislature obviously recognized that allowing non-residents the benefit of the full tort option for damages incurred in New Jersey accidents inevitably would increase the liability exposure of New Jersey insurers and generate pressure for increased premiums. See Dyszel, supra, 6 F. 3d at 127 . The deemer statute is a pragmatic legislative response to that concern. [ Id. at 357, 687 A .2d 738 .]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“assumed that it could not compel insurers not authorized to transact business in New Jersey to provide non-resident insureds injured in New Jersey the minimum liability, uninsured motorist, and personal injury protection benefits mandated by the deemer statute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is also a clear rational basis to support the Legislature's determination that out-of-state residents who operate autos in New Jersey should be precluded from recovering for non-economic loss unless the verbal threshold is satisfied. Inherent in the no-fault system is a statutory right to recover damages without the need to satisfy a threshold. The cost of such recovery must be paid out of the auto insurance system. Appellants, and those who would fall into their category, are not New Jersey insured. As such, they are not in a position to finance the cost of non-threshold coverage. Given this situation and the Legislature's desire to reduce or contain the cost of auto insurance, the legislative judgment was rationally consistent with the purpose of the statute. Furthermore, if the broadest coverage (no threshold) was provided to persons who did not pay for it, then the added cost to the insurer would have to be borne by others, namely consumers who purchase auto insurance. The Legislature reasonably concluded that such a situation would not foster reduced auto insurance premiums. [ Whitaker, supra, 147 N.J. at 355 , 687 A. 2d 738 (quoting Dyszel v. Marks, 6 F. 3d 116, 127 (3d Cir.1993)).]”
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.