Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 245 S.C. 200 - Carroway v. Johnson

Carroway v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
15
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 6 district · 48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Gamble v. Stevenson (1991), Mattison v. Dallas Carrier Corp. (1991)

10 federal appellate · 6 district · 48 state decisions — followed in 15 states

440196519701980199020002010decided

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 American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Werfel · Bowers v. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co. · Quinn v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · Rhame v. National Grange Mutual Insurance · Garrett Ex Rel. Garrett v. Pilot Life Insurance

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

  1. “to pay 'all sums' which the insured 'shall become legally obligated to pay as damages' because of bodily injury. The punitive damage award is a sum which the insured is legally obligated to pay as damages....”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““We point out that the policy provisions herein make no distinction as between actual and punitive damages. Punitive damages are not specifically excluded from the policy language. Under the provision of the policy the company promises to pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall be legally obligated to pay as damages caused by the use of any automobile. The law is clear in Idaho that insurance policies are to be construed most liberally in favor of recovery .... Since policies are written by companies without any arms length bargaining between the parties all ambiguities are resolved in favor of the insured. . . . Clearly absent any public policy to the contrary, this controversy must be resolved in favor of the insured.””
    3 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.