Olson v. Sentry Insurance Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2006
17 state decisions
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 Gant v. Industrial Commission · Reeves v. Midland Casualty Co. · In Re Smith's Estate · 35 Wis. 2d 195 - Wallow v. Zupan · 21 Wis. 2d 467 - Baumgarten v. Jones
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Plaintiff denies receipt of the cancellation notice allegedly mailed on May 3, 1966. He attempts to cast doubt upon the fact of mailing by calling attention to the fact that no mention of cancellation appeared on the account summary introduced into evidence, nor did the insurance agent with whom plaintiff customarily dealt, J. I. Murphy, notify the plaintiff of the cancellation as was allegedly his custom. “According to the cancellation provision of the insurance policy, the insured must be notified of the cancellation for it to be effective. Proof of mailing, however, is conclusive of the notice issue. That the fact of cancellation did not appear on the account summary and that Murphy had not notified the plaintiff of the cancellation do not rebut the testimony that mailing in fact occurred, nor does the denial of receipt aid the plaintiff’s case, for proof of mailing does more than merely raise a presumption of receipt, the denial of which creates a jury issue, as would be the case absent the cancellation provision. See, for example, Reeves v. Midland Casualty Co. (1920), 170 Wis. 370 , 174 N. W. 475 , 174 N. W. 959 .” Olson v. Sentry Ins. Co., supra, pages 179, 180. (Emphasis added.) “There is a great deal of confusion as to whether actual receipt of notice is required, or whether mailing alone is sufficient proof of notice. And, as to which of these requirements constitutes the majority rule. Much of this confusion, can be attributed to the following situations wherein t”
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.