Pearson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently May 1976 · most notably Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance (1967), Pullen v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. (1956)
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Continental Casualty Co. v. Pierce · Birrenkott v. Mc Manamay · Bernard v. Wisconsin Automobile Insurance · Madison v. Steller
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * ‘The word “insured” is defined by the policy itself to include for the purposes named at all times the named insured, Pearson. That the policy gives its broader application so as to include persons driving with the named insured’s consent cannot be said to wipe out the exemptions expressly incorporated into the policy to prevent the insured, that is, the named insured and his family from recovery for their own injuries. The policy is essentially a liability and not an accident policy. It is a contract between Pearson and the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, by the terms of which the latter agrees to protect the former against liability incurred at the suit of anyone outside his own family or household. Mrs. Pearson is a member of the named insured’s household and family and as such is expressly excluded from coverage. The policy provisions creating additional assureds cannot change the essential contract between Pearson and his insurance company. Certainly they cannot be read so as to nullify the expressed exclusions of the policy.’ * * * ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“any obligation * * * to the insured or any member of the family of the insured, * * *”
2 later decisions 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.