Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 674 NE2D 607 - Erie Insurance Exchange v. Stephenson

Erie Insurance Exchange v. Stephenson’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
5
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 2017

1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

90199620002010decided

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 Mazzilli v. Acc. & Cas. Ins. Co. of Winterthur · Tate v. Secura Insurance · American States Insurance Co. v. Kiger · Miller v. Dilts · American Economy Insurance v. Liggett

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

  1. “The requirement of prompt notice gives the insurer an opportunity to make a timely and adequate investigation of all the circumstances surrounding the accident or loss. This adequate investigation is often frustrated by a delayed notice. Prejudice to the insurance company's ability to prepare an adequate defense can therefore be presumed by an unreasonable delay in notifying the company about the accident or about the filing of the lawsuit.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “it is possible to maintain two households or to live as a member of one household and still be the 'domestic head' of a separate household.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “‘Household is not a word of art. Its meaning is not confined within certain commonly known and universally accepted limits. True, it is frequently used to designate persons related by marriage or blood, who dwell together as a family under a single roof. But it has been said also that members of a family need not in all cases reside under a common roof in order to be deemed a part of the household.’”
    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.