Greer v. Associated Indemnity Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
371 F.2d 29 · 1967
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2003 · most notably Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Westchester Fire Insurance (1970), 756 So. 2d 29 - Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson (2000)
18 federal appellate · 15 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 Clay v. Sun Ins. Office Ltd. · American Tobacco Co. v. Green · Clay v. Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. · Edwin Green, Jr., as Administrator of the Estate of Edwin Green, Deceased, and Mary Green v. American Tobacco Company · Ford Motor Co. v. Mathis
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that provision merely assures the applicability of the policy to whichever car is involved in an accident, or to all the cars, and does no more.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * Both the 1960 Pontiac four-door automobile and the 1957 Ford one half-ton pickup truck were ‘owned automobiles’ within the meaning of the provisions in this policy. No non- owned automobiles were involved in this accident, nor was the plaintiff’s intestate struck by an automobile in the sense of being a pedestrian. Hence, directing the Court’s attention to solely the 1957 Ford one-half-ton pickup truck, in applying the previous policy provisions and specifically the insuring agreement requiring that for recovery, the named insured must sustain bodily injury while occupying the owned automobile or a non-owned automobile, it becomes clear that the provisions of the expense for medical service insuring the non-involved automobile could not possibly be interpreted to extend coverage to plaintiff’s intestate because his expenses did not arise as a result of sustaining bodily injuries while occupying the owned automobile ■— (the 1957 Ford one-half-ton pickup truck) (1) described in this policy and (2) for which a specific premium charge was made. Neither was the 1957 Ford one-half-ton pickup truck, designated Car #2 in the policy, a non-owned automobile since it was in fact owned by the insured, and for which a specific premium charge had been made.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When two or more automobiles are insured hereunder, the terms of this policy shall apply separately to each... .”
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.