Mitchell v. Intermountain Casualty Company’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2011
2 federal appellate · 16 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 100 Ga. App. 434 - Leonard v. Firemen's Insurance · Scottish Union & National Ins. v. Bejcy · Southern Surety Co. v. Motlow · 70 Ohio App. 332 - Haas v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance · 23 So. 2d 710 - Pizzolotto v. Sims
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.
“Neither [was] it indicated by any finding nor by any evidence pointed out to us that loss of the car by repossession was contemplated as a damage resulting from the covered risks at the time the contract was entered into. Therefore, the loss caused by repossession of the automobile [was] not damage recoverable under the contract by reason of the breach of the insurance contract to repair or replace.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“As to the aspect of recovery based on breach of contract, damages recoverable under this theory are those damages contemplated by the parties at the time of making the contract. None of the claimed damages were the natural and foreseeable consequences of the claimed breach, and, thus were not within the contemplation of the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘Mere breach of a contract cannot be converted into a tort by showing that failure to perform upon the part of the one committing the breach had resulted in great inconvenience, trouble, annoyance, and hardship to the other party to the contract.’ “Mere delay or failure of the insurer in making the repairs or disputing the extent of the insurer’s obligation under its contract does not give rise to a tort action. * * * ””
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.