Jacobsen v. Howard’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently July 2009 · most notably Blanke v. Alexander (1998), Dunn v. Jones (1936)
1 federal appellate · 37 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 Lorando v. Gethro · Mullen v. Thaxton · Milliron v. Dittman · Devoto v. United Auto Transportation Co. · Temple v. Dugger
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“direct liability of the insurance company to the injured person because the insurer 'is liable for the injuries resulting from the operations of the motor carrier, not by reason of its bond [or policy], but by reason of the statute.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“When a motor carrier files with the Corporation Commission a liability insurance bond as a prerequisite to the issuance to it of a certificate of convenience and necessity, and thereby procures the issuance of such a certificate by the Corporation Commission, neither it nor its liability insurance bondsmen may successfully contend that its bond limits the liability imposed by the statute except as to amount. When it files its liability insurance bond with the Corporation Commission, the provisions of the statute are read into and become a part of that bond.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Therefore, under the language of the statute, inasmuch as the insurance was required as a condition precedent to the defendants’ right to operate a motorbus, and also in view of the fact that the purpose of the policy was to adequately ‘protect the interest of the public’ and ‘to bind the obligors thereunder to make compensation for injuries to persons and loss of or damage to property resulting from the operation of such motor carrier,’ the joinder of the insurance company and bus company was proper.””
2 later decisions 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.