Blocker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably Gene & Harvey Builders, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n (1986), 255 Pa. Super. 116 - Adelman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (1978)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 78 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 Harleysville Mutual Casualty Co. v. Blumling · Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance · 216 Pa. Super. 162 - Bankes v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · Patton v. Patton · Bole v. New Hampshire Fire Ins.
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The single issue for our determination will of course be resolved by our analysis of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by the appellant [defendant]. This analysis of an insurance policy, like the interpretation of any other written contract is a' question of law for the court. Bole v. New Hampshire Fire Insurance Company, 159 Pa. 53 , 28 A. 205 (1895).””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“if it is determined that the language of a policy prepared by an insurer is either ambiguous, obscure, uncertain or susceptible to more than one construction, we must construe that language most strongly against the insurer and accept the construction most favorable to the insured.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Mindful of all of the above, we have concluded that the policy in question is clearly susceptible to two reasonably arguable interpretations. The large volume of cases, in this jurisdiction and others, cited by both parties to this appeal in support of their directly contradictory arguments, lends great weight to this conclusion. In this situation, in which it cannot be maintained that ambiguity is non-existent, precedent requires that we must resolve the ambiguity in favor of the insured, and against the insurance company which prepared the policy, (citations omitted) 232 Pa.Super. at 116 , 332 A.2d at 479 .”
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.