United States v. Morrell’s Empirical Analysis
204 F.2d 490 · 1953
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 2007
11 federal appellate · 2 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 White v. United States · Williams v. Union Central Life Insurance · United States v. Zazove · Pfeiffer v. Missouri State Life Insurance · Scott v. United States
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We see n.o reason why protection should not also be given to a policy holder who pays premiums during disability which are not due, but neglects to pay premiums which become due after his recovery. It then becomes the duty of the insurer under the general rule of insurance law to devote the funds of the policy holder to the payment of his debt, if they are sufficient for the purpose, and thus avoid a forfeiture. * * * “It is a general rule of the law of insurance that an insurer is not justified in declaring a forfeiture of an insurance policy for the nonpayment of premiums when at the time the premiums accrue, the insurer is indebted to the insured, either for dividends declared or other funds belonging to the insured which it may have in its hands. * * * The rule is subject to the limitation that if the policy expressly provides for the disposition of a credit in a particular manner, the insurer is under no obligation, unless the policy holder so directs, to apply the credit in some other way, even though it would be more advantageous for the insured or the beneficiary. * * * This limitation merely gives effect to the rule that the intent of the parties governs in the performance of a contract; and it has been so applied in the disposition of dividends payable under National Service Life Insurance policies where the terms of the statute and regulations expressly provided that dividends should be paid in cash only and should not be available to pay premiums. Parker v. Veter”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.