Fratus v. Republic Western Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
147 F.3d 25 · 1998
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Paul Cummings v. The Standard Register Company Paul Cummings (2001), Goya Foods, Inc. v. Wallack Management Co. (2002)
12 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 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 Fashion House, Inc. v. K Mart Corp. · Cody v. Connecticut General Life Insurance · 17 Ill. 2d 242 - River Valley Cartage Co. v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance · Factory Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Amer. v. Cooper · Commercial Union Insurance v. Walbrook 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It may, at first, seem shocking to impose this immense obligation on [the insurer] for a failure to deliver a relatively small sum to the plaintiffs. Yet, the clear majority of modem courts that have interpreted a standard interest clause under similar circumstances have concluded that the policies mean what they say. . . . “[Other] opinions not only apply the straightforward terms of the contracts, but produce sound policy. Compelling the insurer to pay all of the interest which accmes pending appeal protects the insureds, who may wish to pay the portion of the judgment in excess of policy limits and stop the tolling of interest, but whose lack of control over the litigation prevents them from doing so. . . . The rule also serves to protect plaintiffs from unreasonable delay on the part of insurers, or, as in this case, compensate them for such delays. The rule does not impose an unfair burden on insurers because they remain in control of both the tolling of interest and the litigation, and can fairly be expected to understand how the majority of jurisdictions interpret standard interest clauses.” (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[u]nder R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-21-10, prejudgment interest is technically calculated from “the date the cause of action accrued.” Since the cause of action in this case is a demand of performance on a contract, the date of accrual for the cause of action was the date of demand, i.e., the date the action was filed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]nterest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court.”
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.