Saunders v. Stevers’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 2010
4 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 52 Cal. 2d 154 - Rodriguez v. Barnett · Cook v. Cook · Pimentel v. Conselho Supremo de Uniao Portugueza do Estado da California · 107 Cal. App. 557 - Johnston v. Kearns · 81 Cal. App. 546 - Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. Clark
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where, as here, the company makes no contest but interpleads the contesting beneficiaries and pays the proceeds of the policy into court, a liberal rule obtains and courts of equity seek to do that which the insured intended to have done and to award the funds to the claimant who has the strongest claim under the facts of the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“I have remarried and wish to have my policies mailed to the above address. Also I wish to have both my policies to read Becky Jane Stevers as beneficiary — Sincerely Nancy J. Bardosy. P.S. — I am removing my son Barney Robert Pearson Saunders he having been well provided for by his father.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The insured shall have the right at any time, and from time to time, to change the beneficiary, by written notice in form acceptable to the Company, which will be furnished on request.”
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.