Penn Mut. Life Ins. v. Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

51 federal appellate · 8 district · 21 state decisions

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

1. ““It is a well-established rule of evidence that, where the issue is the fraud or innocence of one in doing an act having the effect to mislead another, it is relevant to show other similar acts of the same person, having the same effect to mislead, at or about the same time, or connected with the same general subject-matter. The legal relevancy of such evidence is based on logical principles. It certainly diminishes the possibility that an innocent mistake was made in an untrue and misleading statement to show similar but different misleading statements of the same person about the same matter, because it is less probable that one would make innocent mistakes of a false and misleading character in repeated instances than in one instance. Thus, where one was on trial for selling skimmed milk for fresh milk, in violation of the statute, it was held competent to show other instances of similar sales on. othler days hy the accused about the same time, because, if he sold skimmed milk in repeated instances, it was rendered more probable that he knew its character in each instance. He might have made the mistake once, but not frequently. Bainbridge v. State, 30 Ohio St. 264 . So, in this court, where the question was of the defendant’s motive and knowledge in making statements concerning the character of a silver mine, we held it competent to show an elaborate and fraudulent scheme to mislead, not the plaintiff, hut another, into the purchase of the mine, although the scheme was co”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Morrison v. United States · Schultz v. United States

2. ““ * * * A fair test of the materiality of a fact is found, therefore, in the answer to the question whether reasonably careful and intelligent men would have regarded the fact, communicated at the time of effecting the insurance, as substantially increasing the chances of the loss insured against. The best evidence of this is to be found in the usage and practice of insurance companies in regard to raising the rates or in rejecting the risk on becoming aware of the fact. * * * ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Keiper v. Equitable Life Assur. Society · Union Indemnity Co. v. Dodd

3. ““That hereafter whenever the application for a policy of life insurance contains a clause of warranty of the truth of the answers therein contained, no misrepresentation or untrue statement in such application made in good faith by the applicant, shall effect a forfeiture or be a ground of defense in any suit brought upon any policy of insurance issued upon the faith of such application, unless such misrepresentation or untrue statement relate to some matter material to the risk.” .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Equitable Life Assur. Society of United States v. Keiper · Keatley v. Grand Fraternity