Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 456 PA 293 - Szarmack v. Welch

Szarmack v. Welch’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
3
states following
November 2019
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 2019 · most notably 2005 Pa. Super. 141 - Eigen v. Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division (2005), James G. Thomas, Jr., Brother and Next of Kin of Karen G. Thomas v. Elizabeth Oldfield, M.D. (2009)

35 state decisions

10019741980199020002010decided

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 Gray v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance · 12 Ill. 2d 231 - People Ex Rel. Terry v. Fisher · Superior Insurance v. Superior Court · Johanek v. Aberle · 19 Utah 2d 189 - Ellis v. Gilbert

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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Appellant also raises the argument that the extent of insurance coverage is privileged. Basically, he asserts that insurance coverage is no different from other private financial information which determines the defendant’s ability to pay a potential judgment. We cannot agree. Insurance coverage is not in the same category with the defendant’s other assets. The worth of such coverage is contingent on recovery by the plaintiff, and its sole purpose from the defendant’s point of view is to protect his other assets. This is not to require disclosure of the private financial status of an individual, but merely to reveal the extent of protection which was purchased specifically for such eventuality. As we have noted, the defendant (presumably the party whose privacy would be violated) is not the party resisting disclosure since such disclosure would tend to dispose of claims within policy limits and relieve defendant of personal exposure.” *”
    2 later decisions 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.