Beatty v. Hoff’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently August 2001 · most notably Waters v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. (1958), Exner v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America (1961)
42 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 Brower v. Employers' Liability Assurance Co. · Traders & General Ins. v. Powell · Coradi v. Sterling Oil Company · 118 Ohio St. 217 - Kazdan v. Stein · Morin v. Travelers Insurance
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he critical question will always be whether the named insured said or did something that warranted the belief that the ensuing use was with his consent. There must be “a connection made” with the named insured’s own conduct; proof of “acts, circumstances and facts, such as the continued use of the car,” will be insufficient “unless they attach themselves in some way to the acts” of the named insured.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““Assuming that the testimony sufficiently established the son’s occasional use of the insured Buick, there was no proof whatsoever that its use on such few occasions (or on the night of the accident) was with-the father’s knowledge. Nor was the use sufficiently frequent to impute knowledge to the father.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the operator must be shown to have obtained possession of the car lawfully and with permission, express or implied, of the named [insured]; if there is a complete lack of permission to use the car for any purpose, the operator is clearly not within the coverage of the policy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Adamski v. Miller
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.