State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wicka’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
3 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably American Family Insurance Co. v. Walser (2001), Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O'Connor & Hannan (1992)
3 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Patterson v. United States · 22 Cal. 3d 333 - People v. Drew · Ruvolo v. American Casualty Co. · Atwater Creamery Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. · Continental Western Insurance v. Toal
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.
“[F]or the purposes of applying an intentional act exclusion contained in a homeowner’s insurance policy, an insured’s acts are deemed unintentional where, because of mental illness or defect, the insured does not know the nature or wrongfulness of an act, or where, because of mental illness or defect, the insured is deprived of the ability to control his conduct regardless of any understanding of the nature of the act or its wrongfulness.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]n intentional act exclusion applies only where the insured acts with the specific intent to cause bodily injury. The requisite intent demands that the insured intended the harm itself, not that the insured intended to act. Under this subjective standard, the necessary intent may be established by proof of an insured’s actual intent to injure or by inference, when the character of the act is such that an intention to inflict injury can be inferred as a matter of law. The inference arises when the nature and circumstances of the insured’s act were such that harm was substantially certain to result.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'bodily injury or property damage which is expected or intended by the insured.”
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.