Joins v. Bonner’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably 201 W. Va. 148 - Adkins v. Meador (1997), United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Goudeau (2008)
33 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 Buckeye Union Insurance v. Price · Insurance Co. of North America v. Perry · 2 Ill. App. 2d 124 - Wolf v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pennsylvania · Testone v. Allstate Insurance · 493 So. 2d 600 - Westerfield v. LaFleur
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In construing uninsured motorist provisions of automobile insurance policies which provide coverage to persons 'occupying' insured vehicles, the determination of whether a vehicle was occupied by the claimant at the time of an accident should take into account the immediate relationship the claimant had to the vehicle within a reasonable geographic area. Robson v. Lightning Rod Mut. Ins. Co., supra, [(1978)] 59 Ohio App.2d [261], 264, 393 N.E.2d 1053 . Here the passenger, Brian Joins, was within a reasonable geographic area of the vehicle from which he had exited and therefore was in the process of 'alighting from' it. 'Language in a contract of insurance reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning will be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer.. Buckeye Union Ins. Co. v. Price (1974), 39 Ohio St.2d 95 , 313 N.E.2d 844 [ 68 O.O.2d 56 ], syllabus." Joins, 28 Ohio St.3d at 401 , 504 N.E.2d at 63-64 .”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In this case the passenger, Brian Joins, exited the passenger side of the insured automobile, crossed in front of this automobile, and in proceeding to cross the street to the opposite curb, was struck by an uninsured vehicle at a point about seven feet from the opposite curb. When, as here, a passenger who exits an insured vehicle and proceeds immediately to cross the street in front of such car to the opposite curb and, before reaching the opposite curb, is struck and injured by an uninsured vehicle, such passenger is 'alighting from' such insured vehicle within the meaning of such terms in the uninsured motorist coverage provision of the insurance policy. The course of conduct of 'alighting from' an automobile includes reaching the opposite side of the street safely since it is a course of conduct reasonably incident to exiting and alighting from an automobile. Crossing the street to a position of safety is within the time framework which could be reasonably expected. Kantola v. State Farm Ins., supra [(1979)], 62 Ohio Misc. [11] at 13, 405 N.E.2d 744 ; Whitmire v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (1970), 254 S.C. 184 , 174 S.E.2d 391 . This principle recognizes the fact that a person is not 'finished' with exiting a vehicle until he or she reaches a place of safety on the side of the street or road to which he or she is proceeding." Joins, 28 Ohio St.3d at 400 , 504 N.E.2d at 63 (emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“until he or she reaches a place of safety ... to which he or she is proceeding.”
2 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.