Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Ceaphus’s Empirical Analysis
1911
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 1946
13 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 Northern Assurance Company of London v. Grand View Building Association · Liverpool, London & Globe Insurance v. T. M. Richardson Lumber Co. · Deming Investment Co. v. Shawnee Fire Insurance · Sullivan v. Mercantile Town Mut. Ins. 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Supreme Court held that parol testimony to establish a waiver of said condition was not only inadmissible to prove that the agent of the company issuing the policy had notice or knowledge of that fact at that time, but that such condition could not be waived by any agent of the company except in the manner stated in the policy, and that the knowledge of the agent of the existence of the forfeiture at the time of its-inception did not constitute a waiver of the conditions of the policy. As the law, as it existed at the time and place of the making of this contract, is a part thereof, and what constitutes a waiver, the facts being undisputed, is a question of law, and as the waiver here contended for occurred, if at all, at the inception of the policy and by the happening of no subsequent event, so that case, deciding as it does that the evidence offered, if admissible, was insufficient in legal effect to establish a waiver, is and- was the law entering into that contract construing it and fixing the rights of the parties thereto. For that reason and the further reason that the parties to said contract being chargeable with knowledge of the law'as it then existed, and presumed to have contracted with knowledge that the acts complained of and then transpiring did not constitute a waiver of said stipulation, that case is controlling here.””
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.