United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Guenther’s Empirical Analysis
281 U.S. 34 · 1930
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 12 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 148 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably 38 Cal. App. 4th 1532 - Hambrecht & Quist Venture Partners v. American Medical International, Inc. (1995), Travelers Protective Ass'n of America v. Prinsen (1934)
35 federal appellate · 12 district · 58 state decisions — followed in 16 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Guenther (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Imperial Fire Insurance v. Coos County · Imperial Fire Ins Co of London v. Coos County · Matter of Petition of Mutual Life Ins. Co. · United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Guenther
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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The fact that a state statute prohibits the employment of a child under sixteen years of age to operate an automobile does not affect the validity of the city ordinance. Municipal corporations in Ohio are given ‘special power to regulate the use of the streets, to be exercised in the manner provided by law,’ and ‘the care, supervision, and control of public highways, streets,’ etc. Plainly the general statute, which merely forbids the employment of minors under sixteen years to operate automobiles, does not prevent the city, in the exercise of its delegated power to regulate the use of its streets, from prohibiting the operation of automobiles by minors under eighteen years of age. Such a regulation merely supplements locally the provision of the general statute and is not in conflict with it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is settled * * * that, when an in-suranee contract is so drawn ,as to be ambiguous, or to require interpretation, or to be fairly susceptible of two different constructions, so that reasonably intelligent men, on reading the contract, would honestly differ .as to the meaning thereof, that construction will be adopted which is most favorable to the insured. But the rule is equally well settled that contracts of insurance, like other contracts are to be construed according to ¡the sense and meaning of the terms which the parties have used, and, if they are clear and unambiguous, their terms are to be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary, and popular sense.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.