Hicks v. Saboe’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably 2000 Pa. Super. 117 - McKeeman v. Corestates Bank, N.A. (2000), Sharpe v. St. Luke's Hospital (2003)
26 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 Guy v. Liederbach · Frowen v. Blank · Sack v. Feinman · Rusiski v. Pribonic · Wilson v. King of Prussia Enterprises, Inc.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In general, the duty of a title insurance company runs only to its insured, not to third parties who are not a party to the contract....Assuming arguendo that such actions by IVT constituted negligence, it is not clear that IVT owed a duty to Mrs. Hicks. IVT’s duties in regard to the 1977 sale of the residence stem solely from its contract with the Saboes. Whether its role in the transaction is characterized as that of an insurer, an abstractor, or a conveyancer, its duties nevertheless arise from its contract with the Saboes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Following the principles set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, the Court permitted a restricted cause of action for an intended third party beneficiary who was not in privity with the professional whose malpractice harmed the beneficiary. It was critical that the beneficiary was an intended beneficiary, that is, one intended by the promisee to receive the benefit of the promised performance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the duty of a title insurance company runs only to its insured, not to third parties who are not party to the contract”
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.