Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 75 OHIOST3D 118 - Hacker v. Dickman

Hacker v. Dickman’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
3
states following
November 2021
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 68 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Lager v. Miller-Gonzalez (2008), Kincaid v. Erie Insurance (2010)

2 federal appellate · 68 state decisions

3301996200020102020decided

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 King v. Nationwide Insurance · Buckeye Union Insurance v. Price

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

  1. “only when a provision in a policy is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I]t is significant that the words “you” and “your” are defined in the policy to refer to both, “1. The ‘named insured’ shown in the Declarations; and 2. The spouse if a resident of the same household.” (emphasis added). Thus, whenever the words “you” and “your” are used in the policy, both [the husband] and [the wife] are included. Applying this definition to Exclusion B/2 reveals that no liability coverage is extended for use of any vehicle, other than the covered auto, owned by [the husband] or [the wife] or furnished or available for their regular use. In this instance, [the husband] was using a vehicle other than his covered auto which was owned by [the wife]. Thus, Exclusion B/2 is applicable and denies liability coverage in this case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]t is axiomatic that this rule cannot be employed to create ambiguity where there is none.”
    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.