Sears v. Austin’s Empirical Analysis
292 F.2d 690 · 1961
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Huff v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (1982), Stribling v. United States (1969)
24 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · De Sylva v. Ballentine · Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Beaver County · Trop v. Dulles · United States v. Cambridge Loan & Building 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny amount of group life insurance and group accidental death insurance in force on any employee at the death shall be paid, upon the establishment of a valid claim therefor, to the person or persons surviving at the date of death, in the following order of preference: First, to the beneficiary or beneficiaries as the employee may have designated by a writing received in the employing office prior to death....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We feel that the provisions of this policy setting up the method by which a beneficiary may be designated or changed are for the protection of the insurer, and we do not feel that the technical provisions are placed in the policy to protect the insured against hasty or impetuous action. In the case now before this court, the insurer is no longer a party, and the battle is between possible beneficiaries. Since this is the case, there is no reason to invoke technical provisions designed to protect an insurer against the possibility of double payment. We feel that the clearly manifested intent of the insured should control.” Sears v. Austin, 292 F.2d 690, 693 (9th Cir. 1961).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The scope of a federal right is, of course, a federal question, but that does not mean that its content is not to be determined by state, rather than federal law. * * * This is especially true where a statute deals with a familial relationship; there is no federal law of domestic relations, which is primarily a matter of state concern.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bell v. Tug Shrike
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.