Blew v. Conner’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2000
2 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Kansas City v. Rooney · McKay v. Delico Meat Products Co. · Fowler v. Baalmann, Inc. · Linenschmidt v. Continental Casualty Co. · 113 Ind. App. 296 - Heffner v. White
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While waiver and estoppel may prevent an insurer from asserting a defense to coverage otherwise provided by an insurance policy our Missouri appellate courts so far as we have been able to ascertain have not yet permitted the use of either waiver or estoppel to establish coverage in the first instance where none existed before.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The general principle has long been recognized that “‘As a general rule, the doctrines of waiver or estoppel can have a field of operation only when the subject matter is within the terms of the contract, and they cannot operate radically to change the terms of the policy so as to cover additional subject matter. Accordingly, it has been held by the weight of authority that ... estoppel cannot create a contract of insurance or so apply as to bring within the coverage of the policy property, or a loss or risk, which by the terms of the policy is expressly excepted or otherwise excluded Weber v. Union Life Ins. Co., Mo.App., 394 S.W.2d 565 [3, 4] [1965]; ... Since we have held that the particular activity is within the exclusionary clause, [the insurer] cannot be estopped in view of the facts presented here.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the doctrines of waiver and estoppel [are] unavailable to bring within the coverage of an insurance policy risks not covered by its terms or expressly excluded therefrom. The reason ordinarily advanced for the rule is that neither waiver nor estoppel may create a new contract for the parties. While an insurer may be estopped by its conduct from declaring a forfeiture of a policy, the coverage cannot be extended by the doctrine of waiver or estoppel.”
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.