Riddlesbarger v. Hartford Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
74 U.S. 386 · 1868
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 17 district · 132 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 281 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2015 · most notably United States v. Marion (1971), Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox (1965)
49 federal appellate · 17 district · 132 state decisions — followed in 39 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 Carter v. Humboldt Fire 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 281 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The action mentioned in the condition, which must be commenced in the twelve months, is the one which is prosecuted to judgment. The failure of a previous action for any cause cannot alter the case although such previous action was commenced within the period prescribed.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“nothing in th[e] language or object [of statutes of limitations] which inhibits parties from stipulating for a shorter period within which to assert their respective claims”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is furthermore hereby expressly provided and mutually agreed, that no suit or action against this Company, for the recovery of any claim by virtue of this Policy, shall be sustainable in any Court of Law or Chancery, unless such suit or action shall be commenced within twelve months next after the disaster causing the loss shall occur; and should any suit or action be commenced against this Company after the expiration of the aforesaid twelve months, the lapse of time shall be taken and deemed as conclusive evidence against the validity of such claim, any statute of limitation to the contrary notwithstanding.””
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.