Freeman v. Nickerson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 42 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is well settled in California that gratuitous references, either in the evidence or the argument, to the fact that a defendant carries liability insurance is prejudicial misconduct justifying a reversal. (Squires v. Riffe, 211 Cal. 370 [ 295 P. 517 ]; Rising v. Veatch, 117 Cal.App. 404 [ 3 P.2d 1023 ]; Citti v. Bava, 204 Cal. 136 [ 266 P. 954 ]; Sischo v. City of Los Banos, 26 Cal.App.2d 642 [ 80 P.2d 116 [119], 1020]; Nichols v. Smith, 136 Cal.App. 272 [ 28 P.2d 693 ]; Schellenberg v. Southern Cal. M. Co., 139 Cal.App. 777 [ 35 P.2d 156 ]; 10 Cal.Jur. 10-Yr. Supp. 664.) “The language of the Supreme Court in Gitti v. Bava, supra, at page 138, is typical of the above cited cases. Referring to proof of a settlement disclosing ‘the fact that the defendant was indemnified by a policy of insurance,’ it is there said: ‘ The evidence of the settlement, alone, not connected up with any act or admission of the defendant and concerning which he had nothing to do was clearly inadmissible in evidence. The error in admitting it might not in and of itself require a reversal, but coupled with the avowed purpose and successful attempt of plaintiff’s counsel to get before the jury not only the fact of the settlement but also that the settlement was made by the insurance carrier of the defendant, puts the ease in a position where section 4-y2 of article VI of the Constitution will not save the judgment. The natural tendency of a line of examination that suggests to the jury that the defend”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 98 Cal. App. 2d 628 - Mahnkey v. Bolger

2. ““The fact that this testimony contained, in addition to unobjectionable matter, references to the insurance of defendant, did not necessarily make it inadmissible for all purposes. It is true that the court frowns upon any attempt to show that a defendant carries indemnity insurance, but where, as here, there is an entire absence of any indication whatsoever of lack of good faith on the part of plaintiff, evidence of this character, as an admission against interest, or for certain other purposes, may be received, notwithstanding the fact that it contains material which under other circumstances would be objectionable.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Charter v. Olson

3. ““It is well settled in California that gratuitous references, either in the evidence or the argument, to the fact that a defendant carries liability insurance is prejudicial misconduct justifying a reversal.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Charter v. Olson