Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 54 F.2d 253 - King v. Ætna Ins.

King v. Ætna Ins.’s Empirical Analysis

54 F.2d 253 · 1931

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
May 2016
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2016

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

60193119401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Btesh v. Royal Ins. · Muller v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. of New York · American Merchant Marine Ins. v. Margaret M. Ford Corp.

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

  1. ““It is a well-recognized rule of marine insurance, which we have recently had occasion to consider in Btesh v. Royal Ins. Co., 49 F.(2d) 720 , that the insured is obliged voluntarily to disclose to the insurer all circumstances known to him and unknown to the insurer which materially affect the risk, and that a failure to make such disclosure will vitiate the policy.” ( 54 F.2d 253, 254 .)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It is held that concealment of an overvaluation so excessive as to make the risk speculative vitiates the policy. The valuation of a vessel at sixteen times what she had just cost the insured likewise makes the risk speculative; the insured has less incentive to protect her than he would had he paid a sum some where near commensurate with the stated value.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “* * * The purchase price is, of course, not conclusive of the value, but it certainly justifies an inference, in the absence of anything to the contrary, that her value was not $40,000 or anything like that figure. (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision 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.