Edgar T. Weekes v. Atlantic National Ins. Co., California State Auto Association v. Atlantic National Ins. Co., Atlantic National Ins. Co. v. California State Auto Association’s Empirical Analysis
370 F.2d 264 · 1966
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2008 · most notably McClain v. Apodaca (1986), Kern Oil & Refining Co. v. Tenneco Oil Co. (1988)
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. · Continental Casualty Co. v. Phoenix Construction Co. · 48 Cal. 2d 31 - Wildman v. Government Employees Insurance Co. · Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co. · Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co.
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“14. Other Insurance. If the insured has other insurance against a loss covered by this policy the company shall not be liable under this policy for a greater proportion of such loss than the applicable limit of liability stated in the declarations bears to the total applicable limit of the liability of all valid and collectible insurance against such loss; provided, however, the insurance under this policy with respect to loss arising out of the maintenance or use of any hired automobile insured on a cost of hire basis or the use of any non-owned automobile shall be excess insurance over any other valid and collectible insurance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where plaintiff brings separate actions based upon different items included in his claim, and in none of the actions does the defendant make the objection that another action is pending based upon the same claim, a judgment ... in one of the actions does not preclude [plaintiff] from obtaining judgment in the other actions. In such case the failure of the defendant to object to the splitting of plaintiff’s claim is effective as a consent to the splitting of the claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“where an automobile liability policy with a $100,000 limit contains an exclusion as to accidents while the car was being operated by any person under the influence of intoxicants, but such exclusion is invalid under the state [f]inancial [r]esponsibility [l]aw, the exclusion is nullified only to the extent of the $10,000 limit required by such law and is operative as to liability in excess of such limit.”
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.