Barfield v. Barfield’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Gardner v. Erie Insurance (1999), Torres v. Kansas City Fire & Marine Insurance Co. (1993)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 27 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 Uptegraft v. Home Insurance Co. · Keel v. MFA Insurance Company · 77 Ill. 2d 384 - Allstate Insurance Co. v. Elkins · 43 Wash. App. 148 - Sayan v. United Services Automobile Ass'n · Watkins v. United States
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) No policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be issued, delivered, renewed, or extended in this state with respect to a motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless the policy includes the coverage described in subsection (B) of this section. (B) The policy referred to in subsection (A) of this section shall provide coverage therein or supplemental thereto for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from the owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles and hit-and-run motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom, (emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the present case, the decedent, Vern L. Barfield stood in a position different than that of a mere passenger or employee. Decedent’s widow is not attempting to recover from a policy with which decedent had no connection. Instead she merely seeks to recover under a policy which insured plaintiff’s decedent against financially irresponsible motorists. Insureds are entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under their policies regardless of the circumstances that exist when they are personally injured through the fault of an uninsured motorist.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[E]mployer-employee tort immunity under the Workers' Compensation Act does not preclude recovery under one's own contract of insurance with an insurance carrier unrelated to the employer-employee relationship. The Oklahoma State Legislature has clearly manifested an intent that a worker who takes steps to assure his financial security shall not be penalized. . . . 7 Protection under an uninsured motorist policy is a contractual right resting in the insured and thus may be coexistent with the protection under the Workers' Compensation Act.”
2 later decisions 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.