United States v. Spaulding’s Empirical Analysis
293 U.S. 498 · 1935
Citation profile
387 federal appellate · 18 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 539 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Barefoot v. Estelle (1983), Underwood v. Ribicoff (1962)
387 federal appellate · 18 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 14 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 v. Spaulding (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Gunning v. Cooley · Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railway Company v. Kellogg · Lumbra v. United States · Stevens v. The White City
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 539 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Clearly the experts failed to give proper weight to his fitness for naval air service or to the work he performed, and misinterpreted ‘total permanent disability’ as used in the policy and statute authorizing the insurance. Moreover, that question is not to be resolved by opinion evidence. It was the ultimate issue to be decided by the jury upon all the evidence in obedience to the judge’s instructions as to the meaning of the crucial phrase, and other questions of law. The experts ought not to have been ashed or allowed to state their conclusions on the whole case. * * *” 293 U.S. at 506 , 55 S.Ct. at 277 . (Emphasis added.)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff in an action of this character to establish that he became totally and permanently disabled before the policy lapsed for the nonpayment of premiums. He must show two things: (1) That before the policy lapsed he was totally disabled, i. e., that his disability was of such a character that he was incapable of pursuing with reasonable regularity any substantially gainful occupation; and (2) that this disability was of a permanent character, i. e., that it was based upon conditions which rendered it reasonably certain at the time that it would continue throughout the life of the insured. Of course, the subsequent history of the insured may be considered for the purpose of determining whether a disability deemed only partial or temporary at the time of the lapse of the policy was in fact total and permanent. But partial disability existing at the time of lapse does not warrant a recovery, even though total disability may subsequently result; and total disability based upon conditions which at the time of lapse do not render it reasonably certain that such total disability will continue through life is not to be deemed permanent, even though a subsequent change of condition's may render such disability permanent in character.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The terms of the contract of insurance are in accordance with section 400, art. IV, Act of October 6, 1917, 40 Stat. 409 , and extend only to death and total permanent disability occuring while it is in force whether during or after termination of the service of the insured. The policy does not cover total temporary disability or partial permanent disability, and does not authorize or permit any payment for physical or mental impairment that is less than ‘total permanent disability.’ Periods of total temporary disability, though likely to recur at intervals, do not constitute the disability covered by the policy, for ‘permanent’ means that which is continuing as contrasted with that which is ‘temporary.’ ””
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.