Stone v. Acuity’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 2021
13 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 125 Ill. App. 3d 329 - Tucker v. Country Mutual Insurance Co. · United National Insurance v. DePrizio · Huml v. Vlazny · 154 Wis. 2d 258 - Duhame v. Duhame · 154 Wis. 2d 56 - Kocinski v. Home Insurance Co.
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“interpretation of a stipulation must, above all, give effect to the intention of the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Id., ¶ 67 (citations omitted). Because we found that UIM insurance coverage existed in favor of the Stones, we held that Acuity had to pay the Stones the full stipulated amount of $500,000 for their injuries and not the lesser amount of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident. Id., ¶ 68. ¶ 37. We are satisfied that Sanders did not waive her right to an appeal by stipulating to the entry of the circuit court's February 10, 2006, order. As we noted in Stone , stipulations must”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“'that the $500,000 figure would be the amount that ACUITY would pay for the injuries and damages sustained by G. Vaughn Stone and Christine Stone in the event [that] insurance coverage is found on appeal to exist from ACUITY Id., ¶ 66. Acuity had failed to provide the Stones with”
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.