Gattavara v. General Insurance Co. of America’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2003 · most notably Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Wilborn (1973), Carew, Shaw & Bernasconi, Inc. v. General Casualty Co. of America (1937)
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 15 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 Davis v. North Coast Transportation Co. · Kelley v. Cohen · Wallin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance · Northern Life Insurance v. Walker · Pennsylvania Fire Insurance v. Johnson
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Finally, the appellant contends that if the judgment is allowed to stand the respondent will reap double recovery — one against the appellant and the other against the mortgagor, Schaide. This argument, while engaging, is not persuasive. September 10, 1929, the respondent brought this action to foreclose the chattel mortgage against Schaide, and prayed for judgment in the sum of $13,-659.12. On September 23, 1929, the respondent and Schaide entered into a written agreement of settlement adjusting all disputes or claims between them relating to various logging operations. At that time Schaide owed the respondent approximately $13,000. When the truck was destroyed the respondent’s security was impaired to the extent of the value of the truck. In the settlement between the respondent and Schaide the latter was given credit for whatever amount the respondent would recover against the appellant by reason of the destruction of the truck. Under these circumstances there would be no double recovery.””
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.