Dunn v. Hackett’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Byrd v. Hall (1993), State v. Powers (2003)
24 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 Worrall v. Kroger Co. · Graves v. Anchor Wire Corp. of Tennessee · Bennett v. Mid-South Terminals Corp. · 57 Tenn. App. 507 - Hermitage Health and Life Insurance Co. v. Cagle · Plough, Inc. v. Premier Pneumatics, Inc.
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Every automobile liability insurance policy delivered, issued for delivery or renewed in this state, covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle ... shall include uninsured motorist coverage. ... (1) The limits of the uninsured motorist coverage shall be equal to the bodily injury liability limits stated in the policy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“When the legislature makes a change in the language of a statute, the general rule is that such change raises a presumption that the legislature intended a departure from the old law.... We are persuaded that when the legislature changed the language in the uninsured motorist statute from “may reject” to “may reject in writing ” and required the writing to be a part of the policy, the legislature evidenced its intent that the only way to eliminate uninsured motorist coverage was a written rejection as a part of the policy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The determination of the issue before us is controlled by the most basic and fundamental rule of statutoxy construction. It has been expressed in many ways over the years but has always conveyed the principle that the courts are restricted to the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used by the Legislature within the four comers of the statute, unless an ambiguity requires resort elsewhere to ascertain legislative intent. (Emphasis Added).”
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.