Smith v. Republic Underwriters’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably Shively v. Burr (1943), Billups v. American Surety Co. (1951)
10 federal appellate · 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 Basta v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Twichell v. Hetzel · Lopez v. Townsend · Whitlock v. United States Inter-Insurance Ass'n · Dekat v. American Automobile Fire Insurance
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Having given consideration to the commercial operations provided for in the certificate or permit — and therein specifically set out- — the company issues a policy covering vehicles engaged in such operations. It does not insure vehicles otherwise engaged — that is, which are being used for commercial, personal or social purposes outside the operations covered by the permit. Or, as the endorsement has it, the policy covers vehicles being operated ‘pursuant to the permit.’ Accordingly, in determining whether there was insurance coverage, a material question was whether the vehicle, at the 'time of the accident, was being operated under or pursuant to the permit.” ^Italics supplied.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This does not mean that deviation from routes specified in a permit or some other departures from the precise terms of a permit suspend the policy. Not at all. A contrary doctrine has been frequently stated. ... In this connection we must note an obvious misunderstanding which pervades the record. It is the apparent assumption that unless the McFadden truck was being operated ‘pursuant to the permit’ it was being operated contrary to the permit or in violation of the law. Of course, that does not at all follow. . . . “There is nothing novel in the limitation of coverage contained in the instant endorsement. For instance, provisions are common which limit coverage to specified use of the vehicle. In fact, the instant provision is really one as to use. . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Briggs v. Burk
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.