Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 96 U.S. 84 - Insurance Company v. McCain

Insurance Company v. McCain’s Empirical Analysis

96 U.S. 84 · 1877

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
November 1986
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 3 district · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1986 · most notably Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. State ex rel. Smith (1888), Johnson v. Christian (1888)

24 federal appellate · 3 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 18 states

120187718801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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.

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

  1. “"Good faith requires that the principal should be held by the acts of one whom he has publicly clothed with apparent authority to bind him."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The policy was received from an agent of the company, one B. F. Smith, who was appointed to solicit applications for policies and collect premiums for a district of country embracing a part of Mississippi and also a part of Alabama, in which the insured resided. To him the first premium was paid. The second premium, due on the 10th of December, 1869, was paid on the 5th of that month to his subagent, who, before the 10th, handed him the amount, and it was *Page 716 credited in his account rendered to the company in April following. The account disclosed the fact that the amount was received upon the policy in question. After its receipt, no communication was made by the company to the assured that Smith was not its agent at the time of the payment, nor was any objection made to the sufficiency of the payment. The insured died in June, 1870.”
    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.