Winner v. Ratzlaff’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 district · 133 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 149 later decisions — most recently June 2010 · most notably Manzanares v. Bell (1974), Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Webb (1981)
2 federal appellate · 10 district · 133 state decisions — followed in 16 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.
Relationships
Relies on Booth v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company · 148 Ind. App. 297 - Indiana Insurance v. Noble Ex Rel. Jordan · Glover v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. · Wright v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York · 113 Ga. App. 54 - State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Girtman
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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the insured must be able to establish fault on the part of the uninsured motorist which gives rise to the damages and to prove the extent of those damages.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The purpose of legislation mandating the offer of uninsured motorist coverage is to fill the gap inherent in motor vehicle financial responsibility and compulsory insurance legislation and this coverage is intended to provide recompense to innocent persons who are damaged through the wrongful conduct of motorists who, because they are uninsured and not financially responsible, cannot be made to respond in damages." (Syl. ¶ 1.)”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““No automobile liability insurance policy covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state, unless the policy contains or has endorsed thereon, a provision with coverage limits not less than the limits for bodily injury or death set forth in K. S. A. 1967 Supp. 8-729, providing for payment of part or all sums which the insured or his legal representative shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the uninsured owner or operator of the motor vehicle because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom, sustained by the insured, caused by accident and arising out of ownership, maintenance or use of such motor vehicle, or providing for such payment irrespective of legal liability of the insured or any other person or organization. Provided, That the coverage required under this section shall not be applicable where any insured named in the policy shall reject the coverage in writing: Provided further, That unless the insured named in the policy requests such coverage in writing, such coverage need not be provided in or supplemental to a renewal policy where the named insured had rejected the coverage in connection with a policy previously issued him by the same insurer. Provisions affording such insurance protection against uninsured motorists issued in this stat”
5 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.