Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 NY2D 305 - Simpson v. Loehmann

Simpson v. Loehmann’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

151
cited by 151 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 12 district · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 151 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Rush v. Savchuk (1980), Jonnet v. Dollar Savings Bank of New York (1976)

36 federal appellate · 12 district · 35 state decisions

950196719701980199020002010decided

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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Harris v. Balk · Davis v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. · Morris Plan Ind. Bank of N.Y. v. Gunning

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

  1. “where the plaintiff is a resident of the forum state and the insurer is present in and regulated by it, the State has a substantial and continuing relation with the controversy.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * The late Robert Riggle, who had been a resident of Illinois, was the driver of an automobile which, in an accident in Wyoming, had injured a New York resident named Mabel Wells. Mrs. Wells, in order to sue Riggle in New York State, moved to have appointed in this State an administrator with the will annexed of Riggle’s property. The only property claimed to belong to Riggle’s estate in New York State was ‘the personal obligation of an indemnity insurance carrier to defend him.’ Section 47 of the Surrogate’s Court Act provided that, for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon a Surrogate’s Court, ‘a debt owing to a decedent by a resident of the state’ is regarded as personal property. The careful and convincing majority opinion in this court concluded, with ample citation of precedent, that within the broad meaning of section 47 this liability insurance policy, even though no judgment had been obtained against the insured, made decedent’s estate a ‘creditor’ and the insurer a ‘debtor’ sufficient for the purposes of the statute. It is interesting to note that the dissenting Judge in Matter of Riggle’s Estate conceded that the insurance company’s obligation ‘to defend and contingently indemnify’ was a debt, but he was of the opinion, contrary to that of the majority, that the insurer was not a resident of the State within the meaning of section 47. The reasoning of the Riggle case is sound and calls for an affirmance here. * * ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““ * * * Nor is there any merit to the defendant’s argument — which was not raised below — that the attachment impairs contract obligations by ‘literally inviting the insured to withhold * * * co-operation.’ If the insured does refuse to co-operate, the insurer’s recourse is clear: he may withdraw and assert such lack of co-operation as a defense in any action brought against him under section 167 of the Insurance Law.””
    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.