Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2000 OK 94 - Harkrider v. Posey

Harkrider v. Posey’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
3
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

1 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently January 2022

1 district · 19 state decisions

110200020102020decided

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 Salve Regina College v. Russell · Barrera v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · Kluver v. Weatherford Hospital Authority · Minneapolis Ry Co v. Rock · George v. Tate

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

  1. “The principal purpose of the Act is to protect the public from the financial hardship which may result from the use of automobiles by financially irresponsible persons. This clearly articulated public policy of our compulsory liability insurance law plainly overrides contrary private agreements that restrict coverage whenever the contractual strictures do not square with the purpose of the Act.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"As used in Section 7-600 et seq. of this title: 1. "Owner's policy'. An owner's policy of liability insurance: [[Image here]] b. shall insure the person named therein and insure any other person, except as provided in subparagraph c of this paragraph, using an insured vehicle with the express or implied permission. of the named insured, against loss from the liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation or use of such vehicle, ..." (emphasis added)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “a misrepresentation as to the terms, quality or other aspects of a contractual relation, venture or other transaction that leads a person to agree to enter into the transaction with a false impression or understanding of the risk, duties or obligation she has undertaken.”
    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.