Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 25 OHIOST2D 231 - Ervin v. Garner

Ervin v. Garner’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
5
states following
August 2025
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp. (1984), 77 Wis. 2d 537 - Garrity v. Rural Mutual Insurance (1977)

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 39 state decisions

170197119801990200020102020decided

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 Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Steigerwalt

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

  1. “Cases of contractual interpretation should not be decided on the basis of what is ‘just’ or equitable. This concept is applicable even where a party has made a bad bargain, contracted away all his rights, and has been left in the position of doing the work while another may benefit from the work. Where various written documents exist, it is the court’s duty to interpret their meaning, and reach a decision by using the usual tools of contractual interpretation (e.g., the written documents, the intent of the parties, and the acts of the parties) and not by a determination of what is fair, equitable, or just.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “This view does not exhibit a lack of concern over a possible windfall to the insurer who sits back and allows the insured to pursue the action against the tortfeasor. Obviously that could happen, but such a result should not be characterized as unfair if it is in accordance with the provisions of the policy as sold. The insured knew, or should have known, when he bought the policy that in case of any payment he would be required to assign `all right of recovery against any party for loss to the extent that payment * * * is made * * *.'”
    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.