159 Ohio App. 3d 265 - Benjamin v. Sawicz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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

1. “In opposing the defendants’ discovery requests, plaintiff again relies on the position that the distinction between the Superintendent’s dual identities should prevent the Superintendent’s office as Regulator from being required to comply with the discovery requests, since the Superintendent as Regulator is not a party to the action. However, as the motion court correctly noted, examination of a party in a different capacity may be had when its conduct in that other capacity has been placed in issue. Here, the conduct of the Superintendent prior to the time of liquidation has been placed squarely in issue. The plaintiff has under his control, in the Insurance Department, special and direct knowledge vital to the action and must disclose all information material and relevant to this action whether in his capacity as Regulator or Liquidator. Similarly unsupportable is plaintiffs further contention that because the Superintendent, as Regulator, is a separate and distinct third party, any deposition of his employees should be treated as depositions of “non-party witnesses,” which would be available to the defendants only by means of subpoena ... and that any documents in the Superintendent’s possession should be discoverable only by means of court order.... The reason for the cited provisions regarding discovery of non-party witnesses is to ensure that a non-party has notice and an opportunity to contest the discovery. By this very proceeding, however, appellant has had that oppo”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Dewey & Leboeuf, LLP v. Crane

2. “However, even assuming that the superintendent’s action is properly characterized as one brought in her capacity as liquidator, similar to Ideal, conduct occurring prior to liquidation and relevant to the ability of appellees to defend themselves has been placed in issue by the superintendent. Under these circumstances, and where appellant has under her control, through the department of insurance, “special and direct knowledge vital to the action,” we find persuasive the Ideal court’s conclusion that the superintendent must disclose ‘all information material and relevant to this action,’ whether in the superintendent’s capacity as regulator or liquidator.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Dewey & Leboeuf, LLP v. Crane

3. “An order to rehabilitate the business of a domestic insurer, or an alien insurer domiciled in this state, shall appoint the superintendent of insurance and his successors in office the rehabilitator, and shall direct the rehabilitator forthwith to take possession of the assets of the insurer, and to administer them under the general supervision of the court. The rehabilitator is vested by operation of law with the title to all property, contracts, and rights of action of the company as of the date of the entry of the judgment of the court order directing rehabilitation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 167 Ohio App. 3d 350 - Benjamin v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P.