Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1989 OK 137 - Daigle v. Hamilton

Daigle v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
October 2016
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 2016

5 state decisions

501989199020002010decided

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 Keel v. MFA Insurance Company · DENCO BUS LINES, INC. v. Hargis · Enders v. Longmire · Jacobsen v. Howard · 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “such liability and property damage insurance policy or bond shall bind the obligor thereunder to make compensation for injuries to, or death of, persons, and loss or damage to property, resulting from the operation of any such motor carrier for which such carrier is legally liable.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “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.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he insurer under a compulsory insurance policy may be joined as a defendant with the insured in an action by an injured third person, generally, on the theory that under statutes requiring and controlling compulsory insurance, a direct or joint right is created in favor of the injured person against both the insured and the insurer. And our Court has on many occasions held that where a motorist is required by statute or ordinance to file a policy of liability insurance to protect the interests of the public or injured persons, though not expressly giving to them a direct benefit under the policy, the joinder of the insurer and the insured in the same action is permitted.”
    1 later decision 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.