Morrison v. Swenson’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 9 district · 128 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Upland Mutual Insurance, Inc. v. Noel (1974), Cohen v. American Home Assurance Co. (1969)
4 federal appellate · 9 district · 128 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Kausal v. Minnesota Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance · Rommel v. New Brunswick Fire Insurance Co. · Dworsky v. Vermes Credit Jewelry, Inc. · Kilborn v. Prudential Insurance · Koivisto v. Bankers & Merchants Fire 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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[LJegal fees are ordinarily not recoverable unless there is statutory authority for it. However, this action is in the nature of an action to recover damages for breach of contract. Legal fees incurred in the declaratory judgment action were damages arising directly as a result of the breach. We think that the injured party in an action of this kind ought to be permitted to recover whatever expenses he has been compelled to incur in asserting his rights, as a direct loss incident to the breach of contract.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Was the broker at the time of effecting the insurance actually or ostensibly connected with the insurer and employed by it, or was he acting independently of any employment by the company? (2) From whom did the broker’s express or implied authority to do the act in question originally proceed? (3) Was the act one which the broker was expressly authorized to do, or was it a usual and necessary means to accomplish the execution of the authority conferred? (4) Was the act done independently of the original employment, and if so, for whom, or at whose instance? (5) Which party could the broker hold directly responsible for his remuneration at the time the act in question was done? (6) Was there any limitation on the broker’s ostensible authority, of which the person dealing with him was, or ought to have been, cognizant? (7) Was there any ratification by the ostensible principal of the claimed authorized act?”
5 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.