Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 881 F.2d 948 - Dean v. Johnson

Dean v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

881 F.2d 948 · 1989

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
7
states following
May 2012
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Prudential Insurance v. Hinkel (1997), Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Christ (1992)

9 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions

2301989199020002010decided

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 Sharon O'Neal v. Constance Gonzalez · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. McShan · Knowles v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

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

  1. “a change of beneficiary may be made at any time and without the knowledge or consent of the previous beneficiary, and this right cannot be waived or restricted.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The amount of group life insurance and group accidental death insurance in force on an employee at the date of his death shall be paid ... to the beneficiary or beneficiaries designated by the employee in a signed and witnessed writing received before death in the employing of-fice_ For this purpose, a designation, change or cancellation of beneficiary in a will or other document not so executed and filed has no force or effect.”
    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.