Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 263 Wis. 463 - Olander v. Klapprote

Olander v. Klapprote’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
states following
November 1986
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently November 1986

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions

1201953196019701980decided

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 Jones v. Preferred Accident Insurance Co. of New York · Ottens v. Atlas Assurance Co.

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

  1. ““Accident insurance, highway traffic, policy provisions “(1) No policy of insurance against loss or damage resulting from accident or injury to a person, and for which the insured is liable, or against loss or damage to property caused by animals or by any motor vehicle, and for which the insured is liable, shall be issued or delivered in this state unless it shall contain * * *. <•(2) * * * “(3) No such policy shall be issued or delivered in this state to the owner of a motor vehicle, unless it contains a provision reading substantially as follows: The indemnity provided by this policy is extended to apply, in the same manner and under the same provisions as it is applicable to the named assured, to any person or persons while riding in or operating any automobile described in this policy when such automobile is being used for purposes and in the manner described in said policy. Such indemnity shall also extend to any person, firm or corporation legally responsible for the operation of such automobile. The insurance hereby afforded shall not apply unless the riding, use or operation above referred to be with the permission of the assured named in this policy, or if such assured is an individual, with the permission of an adult member of such assured’s household other than a chauffeur or domestic servant; provided, however, that no insurance afforded by this paragraph shall apply to a public automobile garage or an automobile repair shop, sales agency, service station and/”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “denies to the insurer the right to exclude from its policy provisions of indemnity to the person responsible for the operation of the automobile.”
    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.