Howell v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Commerce (2007), State Ex Rel. Schachter v. Ohio Public Employees Retirement Board (2009)
87 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 Preferred Risk Insurance v. Gill · Farm Bureau Mut. Automobile Ins. v. Hammer · Miller v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Snodgrass v. Baize · Kelly v. Cherokee Insurance 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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Uninsured motorist coverage, which shall be in an amount of coverage equivalent to the automobile liability or motor vehicle liability coverage and shall provide protection for bodily injury or death under provisions approved by the superintendent of insurance, for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, suffered by any person insured under the policy. For purposes of division (A)(1) of this section, a person is legally entitled to recover damages if he is able to prove the elements of his claim that are necessary to recover damages from the owner or operator of the uninsured motor vehicle. The fact that the owner or operator of the uninsured motor vehicle has an immunity, whether based upon a statute or the common law, that could be raised as a defense in an action brought against him by the person insured under uninsured motorist coverage does not affect the insured person's right to recover under his uninsured motorist coverage. " (Emphasis added.) {¶ 33} Under the relevant version of R.C. 3937.18 (A), UM/UIM coverage arising by operation of law only provided for injury "arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"Intervention of Right. — Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: ... (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.