Bell v. O'Leary’s Empirical Analysis
744 F.2d 1370 · 1984
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 2023
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 Federal Crop Ins Corporation v. Merrill · Noyd v. Bond · 281 So. 2d 728 - Karam v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company · Consolidated Sun Ray, Inc. v. Lea · Zeff Distributing Co. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the threshold we note that the unavailability of flood insurance from any source did not relieve [the agent] of the obligation to the plaintiffs to pursue their applications, with diligence, and to inform his clients that the insurance was unobtainable. Further, [the agent’s] failure to discover crucial information lulled the plaintiffs into believing that no further actions were necessary. In other words, by failing to discover the facts which would have prevented the mistaken belief by all that the plaintiffs were insured, [the agent] foreclosed the opportunity to consider other options that might have been available to the plaintiffs. ‘Obtaining flood insurance from some other source was not the only option left to the plaintiffs had they been timely notified of noncoverage.’ This is true particularly when one considers that the plaintiffs were trying to obtain insurance for mobile homes, property which could have been moved in order to meet eligibility requirements. However, whether the plaintiffs would have pursued other options is not the point. As noted in Boothe , “we must not speculate what measures the plaintiffs might have taken or not taken if they had been informed that they could not get flood insurance.’ As a result, the plaintiffs suffered monetary losses that they otherwise might not have incurred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“is charged with the ability to do more than simply fill out application forms.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.