Amanda Whitfield Herbert Hadley v. Aetna Life Insurance Company of Hartford’s Empirical Analysis
1907
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently May 2007 · most notably Lorando v. Gethro (1917), William Ensign v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania No 123 Charles a Ensign (1913)
1 federal appellate · 3 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 19 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Ritter v. Mutual Life Ins Co of New York · Northwestern National Life Insurance Company v. Paul Riggs B · Knights Templars' & Masons' Life Indemnity Co. v. Jarman · Logan v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. · 58 Mo. App. 557 - Keller v. Travelers' Insurance
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If, notwithstanding the statute, an insurance company, may by contract, bind itself, in case of the suicide of the insured, to pay only one-tenth of the principal sum, may it not lawfully contract for exemption as to the whole sum or only a nominal part thereof, and if sued, defeat any action in which a recovery is sought for the entire amount insured? In this way the statute could be annulled or made useless for any practical purpose. Looking at the object of the statute, and giving effect to its words, according to their ordinary, natural meaning, the legislative intent was to cut up by the roots any defense, as to the whole and every part of the sum insured, which was grounded upon the fact of suicide. The manifest purpose of the statute was to make all inquiry as to suicide wholly immaterial, except where the insured contemplated suicide at the time he applied for his policy. Any contract inconsistent with the statute must be held void.””
2 later decisions 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.