61 Ill. App. 2d 157 - Smith v. Moran’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 1996 · most notably Continental Western Insurance v. Toal (1976), Ambassador Insurance Company v. Montes (1978)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 45 state decisions — followed in 17 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.
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A further uncertainty lurks in the exclusionary clause itself. It alludes to damage caused ‘intentionally by or at the direction of the insured.’ Yet an act of the insured may carry out his ‘intention’ and also cause unintended harm. When set next to the words ‘at the direction of the insured’ the word ‘intentionally’ might mean to the layman collusive, wilful or planned action beyond the classical notion of intentional tort. This built-in ambiguity has caused debate and refined definition in many courts; in any event, the word surely cannot be ‘plain and clear’ to the layman.” (p. 273.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The appellant cites Hill v. Standard Mut. Casualty Co., 7 Cir., 110 F.2d 1001 , as authority for its contention. However, the exclusionary clause in that case stated that the insurance company would not be liable for damage caused by intentional acts of the assured. The case before us relates to injury caused intentionally by or at the direction of the insured. * * *””
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.