Foster v. Winingham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Unless a controlling statutory provision or an effective regulation promulgated under statutory authority exacts otherwise, the intention and purpose of the insured should be given effect in a case of this kind involving the question whether his wife or this daughter is the beneficiary under a policy of National Service Life Insurance if it reasonably can be done. Narrow technicalities not contravening an applicable statutory provision or an effective regulation should be brushed aside in order to effectuate such intent and purpose. And substance rather than form should be the basis of decision. Bradley v. United States, 10 Cir., 143 F.2d 573 , certiorari denied, Bradley v. Bradley, 323 U.S. 793 , 65 S.Ct. 429 , 89 L.Ed. 632 ; Mitchell v. United States, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 758 ; McKewen v. McKewen, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 761 , certiorari denied, 334 U.S. 860 , 68 S.Ct. 1530 , [ 92 L.Ed. 1780 ].””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lovato v. United States · Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Heyn

2. ““But the admissibility of the letter in evidence is challenged. The argument is that it was hearsay, a mere conclusion, a self-serving declaration, and not binding on the wife. Ordinarily writings or unsworn declarations which are no part of the res gestae are not admissible in evidence. But where the existence of a particular intent of a person at a certain time and in connection with a certain incident or transaction becomes a distinct and material fact to be proved in a chain of circumstances, words spoken or written by such person which have a bearing upon that intent are admissible. They are not admissible for the purpose of establishing the substantive fact that the person acted or failed to act. They are admissible only for the purpose of throwing light upon the question of his intent in acting or failing to act. The letter which the insured wrote his daughter was not admissible as a narrative of the substantive fact that he took out insurance for her benefit. But it was admissible as a proper token of his intent and purpose in taking out the insurance. And there is no indication in the record that the trial court considered the letter for any other purpose.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 190 F. Supp. 734 - Krimlofski v. United States