Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 35 U.S. 507 - The Columbia Insurance Company of Alexandria, in Error v. Joseph W. Lawrence, Who Survived Thomas Poindexter

The Columbia Insurance Company of Alexandria, in Error v. Joseph W. Lawrence, Who Survived Thomas Poindexter’s Empirical Analysis

35 U.S. 507 · 1836

Citation profile

143
cited by 143 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
January 2000
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 11 district · 55 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 143 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2000 · most notably Place v. Norwich & New York Transportation Co. (1886), Carpenter v. Providence Washington Insurance (1841)

41 federal appellate · 11 district · 55 state decisions — followed in 23 states

170183618401850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Columbian Insurance Co. of Alexandria v. Lawrence

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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We know of no principle of law or of equity by which a mortgagee has a right to claim the benefit of a policy underwritten for the mortgagor on the mortgaged property in case of a loss by fire. It is not attached, or an incident, to his mortgage. It is strictly a personal contract for the benefit of the mortgagor, to which the mortgagee has no more title than any other creditor.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Lord Chancellor King, in Lynch v. Dalzell, (3 Bro.P.C. 497 s.c., 2 Marsh on Ins. b. 4, ch. 4, p. 803) ... [as] saying, 'these policies are not insurances of the specific things (goods) mentioned to be insured; nor do such insurances attach to the realty, or in any manner go with the same, as incident, ... but they are only special agreements with the persons insured against such loss or damage as they may sustain.' "); Hopkins Ill. Elevator Co. v. Pentell (In re Pentell), 777 F.2d 1281 , 1284 (7th Cir.1985) ("[T]he insurance proceeds are not considered to be derived from the real property....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““A loss by fire, occasioned by the mere fault and negligence of the assured, or his servants or agents, and without fraud or design, is a loss within the policy, upon the general ground that the fire is the proximate cause of the loss, and also upon the ground that the express exceptions in policies against fire leaves this within the scope of the general terms of such policy.””
    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.