The Union Insurance Company v. John Blair Hoge’s Empirical Analysis
62 U.S. 35 · 1858
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 5 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1997 · most notably Fairbank v. United States (1901), Driscoll v. Edison Light & Power Co. (1939)
12 federal appellate · 5 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 12 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.
Relationships
Relies on People ex rel. Attorney General v. Utica Insurance · Ketchum v. City of Buffalo · Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. Jarvis · Shaughnessy v. Rensselaer Insurance
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is argued, however, that the company in question is a mutual insurance company, as declared by the act; that, according to this system, the insured must be a member of it, and that a person insured upon a cash premium, without any further liability, cannot be a member. This argument is not well founded, either upon principle or authority. Admitting that the insured must be a member of the company, he is made so by the payment of a cash premium. The theory of a mutual insurance company is, that the premiums paid by each member for the insurance of his property constitute a common fund, devoted to the payment of any losses that may occur. Now, the cash premium may as well represent the insured in the common fund, as the premium note; and this class of companies has been so long engaged in the business of insurance it may well be that they can determine, with sufficient certainty for all practical purposes, the just difference in the rates of premium between cash and notes. These mutual companies, possessing the authority contained in the 8th section of this charter, namely: to take cash premiums or premium notes, are, at the present day, in operation in several of the States, and it has never been supposed that the mutual principle has been thereby abrogated.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wetmore v. McElroy“this practical construction cannot be admitted as controlling, it is not to be overlooked.”
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.