American Casualty Co. v. Continisio’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 2011
8 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1823 · 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America · Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“construe[d] the notice of claim provision as imposing a duty on the insured to give some kind of formal, written notification of occurrences in order to evoke coverage.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“become aware of any occurrence which may subsequently give rise to a claim,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“) liability insurance written by MGIC Indemnity Corporation (”
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.