Parks v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 158 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 188 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably 591 So. 2d 342 - Schroeder v. Board of Sup'rs (1991), American Home Assurance Company v. Czarniecki (1969)
16 federal appellate · 158 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 Callender v. Marks · Heiman v. Pan American Life Ins. Co. · State of Louisiana v. Farnsworth · May v. Yellow Cab Co. · Stephenson v. List Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc.
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 188 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We therefore conclude that the permission of the assured to Hall to use the car in the first instance, irrespective of the use to which he put the car while in his possession, was `permission of the assured' within the meaning and contemplation of the `omnibus clause' and the insurer is therefore liable to plaintiffs thereunder.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“`an automobile collision policy must be construed according to the evident intent of the parties, to be derived from the words used, the subject matter to which they relate, and the matters naturally or usually incident thereto. The language employed in the policy is to be construed so as to effectuate the insurance and not for the purpose of defeating it; * * *' [Parks v. Hall, 189 La. 849 , 181 So. 191 .]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The words used in the clause would be practically meaningless and the object there made nugatory if it were necessary to determine in every case whether, at the time and under the circumstances of the accident, the driver was proceeding within the limitations of the permission of the assured to use the car. * * *””
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.