Mock v. Maryland Casualty Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 1998
5 federal appellate · 8 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 Reeves v. Globe Indemnity Co. of New York · Edwards v. Royal Indemnity Co. · Ormsby v. Executors · Ruiz v. Clancy · Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The statute merely affords a remedy and permits a direct action not under any theory that by the contract of insurance any right is created in plaintiff against the insurer but merely on the ground that, by the tort, rights are created which are permitted to be asserted directly against the insurer of the party at fault.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“`Even if the Act of 1930 created any substantive rights in plaintiffs, the contract of insurance contained no provision which by any stretch of the imagination could be construed as rendering the insurer liable in any case in which the insured would not himself have been liable. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Even if the Act of 1930 created any substantive rights in plaintiffs, the contract of insurance contained no provision which by any stretch of the imagination could be construed as rendering the insurer liable in any case in which the insured would not himself have been liable. * * * "The legal situation is not the same as that presented in Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Company of America, La.App., 169 So. 132 , nor is it the same as that found in Edwards v. Royal Indemnity Co., 182 La. 171 , 161 So. 191 , and Palmer v. Edwards, La. App., 155 So. 483 , rehearing denied La.App., 156 So. 781 . Nor is it the same as was found in Ruiz v. Clancy, 182 La. 935 , 162 So. 734 , for in each of those cases it was held that the only reason for which there might be recovery from the insurer, though not from the insured, was that the insured enjoyed an immunity which was personal and of which immunity the insurer could not take advantage. But in each of those cases the insurer was held liable because the court found that the insured too would have been liable but for the immunity. Here there would have been no liability in Weiland because the law gave no rights under the circumstances, and since the law gave no rights against Weiland, the Act of 1930 gave none either. As we have said, that statute created no substantive rights. See Rossville Commercial Alcohol Corp. v. Dennis Sheen Transfer Co., Inc., 18 La.App. 725 , 138 So. 183 ; Gager v. Teche Transfer Co., Inc., La.App., 143 S”
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.