Robertson v. People of State of California’s Empirical Analysis
328 U.S. 440 · 1946
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 6 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 149 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2015 · most notably Securities & Exchange Commission v. National Securities, Inc. (1969), Travelers Health Ass'n v. Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission (1950)
37 federal appellate · 6 district · 37 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.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n · Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc. · Paul v. Virginia · Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc. · John Hendrick v. State of Maryland
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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The lawfully required portion of Premiums paid on this Certificate shall be set aside into the Mortuary Fund. Premiums necessary to maintain this Certificate in force are not fixed amounts and in event of Premium insufficiency may be adjusted, with the written approval of the Corporation Commission, for the purpose of payment of claims and general operating expenses. In the event of any emergency caused by excessive mortality the Corporation may, with the written consent or at the direction of the Corporation Commission, levy Assessments on Members to be placed in the Mortuary Fund.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“and goes on to rest on the general proposition that it cannot prohibit interstate commerce entirely and that the effect of the statutory provisions, particularly § 10818, see note 13 supra, is to do this. As will appear, the argument really comes down to maintaining that California cannot require foreign companies or their agents to comply with her minimum requirements for issuing the type of insurance issued here. [16] By § 10510 of the Code,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Except as provided in sections 1760 and 1760.5, a person within this State shall not transact any insurance on property located . . . within, or on the lives or persons of residents of this State with nonadmitted insurers, except by and through a surplus line broker licensed under this chapter and upon the terms and conditions prescribed in this chapter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.