Rhault v. Tsagarakos’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 2003 · most notably Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Webb (1981), 104 Wash. 2d 543 - Elovich v. Nationwide Insurance (1985)
2 federal appellate · 5 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Company · Lorando v. Gethro · Kirouac v. Healey · American Mutual Insurance v. Romero · 270 F. Supp. 473 - Robey v. Safeco Insurance Company of America
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he design of the statute is to protect a responsibly insured motorist against the unfortunate hazard presented by an injury inflicted in an accident with an irresponsible operator who is uninsured or has fled the scene, leaving the insured without recourse for the damage inflicted by an irresponsible operator. The statute has fashioned the means to benefit an insured who has provided protection for others, to obtain protection for himself. And the court must construe the policy and the statutory provision to achieve the primary purpose of the enactment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) No policy insuring against liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of any motor vehicle may be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless coverage is provided therein, or supplemental thereto, for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages, from owners or operators of uninsured or hit-and-run motor vehicles, for bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured or hit- and-run motor vehicle. (b) Every policy insuring against liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of any motor vehicle shall provide insurance against loss resulting from the liability imposed by law for damages because of bodily injury or death of any person within this state or elsewhere in the United States and Canada. (c) The coverage under (a) and (b) of this section shall be not less than the minimum limits of coverage required under the provisions of section 801 of this title. (d) For the purpose of this subchapter an “uninsured motor vehicle” includes an insured other motor vehicle where: (1) The liability insurer of the other motor vehicle is unable, because of its insolvency, to make payment with respect to the legal liability of its insured within the limits specified in its policy; and (2) The occurrence out of which the legal liability arose took place ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(e) If payment is made under uninsured motorist coverage, and subject to the terms of that coverage, to the extent of that payment, the insurer is entitled to the proceeds of any settlement or recovery from any person legally responsible for the damage or personal injury, as to which the payment was made, and to amounts recoverable from the assets of the insolvent insurer of the other motor vehicle.”
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.