Osborn v. Ozlin’s Empirical Analysis
310 U.S. 53 · 1940
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 42 district · 128 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 335 later decisions (47 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018 · most notably Hanson v. Denckla (1958), Travelers Health Ass'n v. Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission (1950)
47 federal appellate · 42 district · 128 state decisions — followed in 21 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.
Relationships
Relies on Allgeyer v. State of Louisiana · Noble State Bank v. Haskell · Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Industrial Accident Commission · German Alliance Insurance Company v. Ike Lewis · Home Ins Co v. Dick
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 335 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he mere fact that state action may have repercussions beyond state lines is of no judicial significance so long as the action is not within that domain which the Constitution forbids.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The] agent is tied to his company ... The broker on the other hand, is an independent middleman, not tied to a particular company ...”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““7. Hartford Accident & Ind. Co. v. Delta Co., 292 U.S. 143 , 54 S.Ct. 634 , 78 L.Ed. 1178 , 92 A.L.R. 928 , resting on Home Ins. Co. v. Dick, 281 U.S. 397 , 50 S.Ct. 338 , 74 L.Ed. 926 , 74 A.L.R. 701 , held that the terms of a contract validly made in Tennessee could not be subsequently enlarged by Mississippi as to a condition of ‘substantial importance’ when suit was later brought on the policy in Mississippi, simply because ‘the interest insured was in Mississippi when the obligation to indemnify * * * matured, and it was [the company’s] duty to make payment there.’ 292 U.S. at page 149 , 54 S.Ct. at page 630, 78 L.Ed. 1178 , 92 A.L.R. 928 . At the time the contract was entered into Mississippi had no interest in the risk covered. The Court folt that, even at the time of suit, ‘performance at most involved only the casual payment of money in Mississippi,’ 292 U.S. at page 150 , 54 S.Ct. at page 636, 78 L.Ed. 1178 , 92 A.L.R. 928 , and that was an interest so subordinate to that of Tennessee that the latter was entitled to have the right of way. No question was thus involved touching the right of a state to regulate companies doing business within its borders as to contracts of insurance covering local risks.” Osborn v. Ozlin, 310 U.S. 53 , 60 S.Ct. 758, 763-764 (footnote 7), 84 L.Ed. 1074 . (Emphasis supplied.)”
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.