Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 50 F.3d 137 - Mazzaferro v. RLI Insurance

Mazzaferro v. RLI Insurance’s Empirical Analysis

50 F.3d 137 · 1995

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
5
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2023

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

501995200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on City of Norwich v. Silverberg · Covenant Insurance v. Coon · Harvey v. Travelers Indemnity Co. · Streitweiser v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. · Downs v. National Casualty 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A contract of insurance must be read as a whole, including any introductory clause or heading, to determine the intent of the parties.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “1) The insurer is paid to take the risk in question; 2) the insurer is well able to pay; 3) the insurer has agreed to indemnify the insured from liability to third persons as contrasted with coverage from losses sustained by the insured; 4) the insurer will spread the loss among its policy holders; 5) the insured will be disinclined to take an action which might cause the insurer to pay on a liability claim since the insured’s premiums will rise; and 6) the insured is insuring a future risk.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[compensate] an insured motorist for injuries caused by the negligence of another motorist who is either uninsured or underinsured. . . [It] fills the void where the insured and his family are not at fault, but are injured, and where the one inflicting the injury either is uninsured, underinsured or a hit and run driver where the identity and fact of insurance or non-insurance cannot be ascertained.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.