Hundertmark v. Hundertmark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 28 state decisions

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.

1. ““The law appertaining to the equitable assignment of the benefits of an insurance policy is well settled in this state. There is no doubt that a beneficiary named pursuant to a definite agreement that he shall be so named, by virtue of a valuable consideration moving from him, acquires a right in the policy or the proceeds thereof that will be protected against subsequently named beneficiaries who have no superior equity,...” quoting Visnik v. Mance, 326 Pa. 399, 402 , 191 A. 127 (1937).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Gibson · Eonda v. Affinito

2. ““Our cases -have uniformly recognized that a contract not to change the beneficiary, entered into by an insured and his designated, beneficiary for a valuable consideration, is binding as between the insured, or his volunteer, and the contractually determined beneficiary and will be enforced in equity. For example, in Shepler v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 334 Pa. 257 , 5 A.2d 567, 568 , where the formerly named beneficiary was denied a right to the proceeds of the policy because there was no consideration for the insured’s promise not to change the beneficiary, this court took occasion to note that ‘A different situation is created, however, when the member agrees, for consideration, to name a certain person as beneficiary, or, if one has already been named, not to make a substitution.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Western Life Insurance Company v. Bower

3. ““Our cases have uniformly recognized that a contract not to change the beneficiary, entered into by an insured and his designated beneficiary for a valuable consideration, is binding as between the insured, or his volunteer, and the contractually determined beneficiary and will be enforced in equity. . . . “So far as the insurance company is concerned, the one entitled to the proceeds of a policy, upon its accrual as a liability of the company, is the person named at the time as the beneficiary of the policy in accordance with the company’s rules and regulations. That is an entirely different matter than the question which this litigation presents.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 18 Wis. 2d 109 - Lee v. Preiss