Knights Templars' & Masons' Life Indemnity Co. v. Jarman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 16 district · 52 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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'in case of the self-destruction of the holder of this policy, whether voluntary or involuntary, sane or insane, . . . this policy shall become null and void,’ applied and exonerated the company from all liability beyond that provided in the policy,' that in the case of the suicide of the holder of this policy, then this company will pay to his widow and heirs or devisees such an amount of his policy as the member shall have paid to this company on the policy in assessments on the same without interest.’”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Whitfield v. Ætna Life Insurance · Amanda Whitfield Herbert Hadley v. Aetna Life Insurance Company of Hartford

2. “The company refused to pay the full amount named in the policy, claiming that by the express provisions of the policy self-destruction by the insured, whether sane or insane, rendered the contract for the payment of $5,000 void, and the company was only bound to. pay the amount which had been paid in assessments by the insured. This action was brought in the Circuit Court for the Western District of Missouri, to recover the full sum of $5,000. The case was tried to the court, a jury being waived. The parties stipulated that the company was liable for the full amount claimed by the plaintiffs, unless excused by the clause in the policy providing that the same should be void in case of suicide; . . . Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs having been entered for the full amount of the policy,' the case was brought to this court upon writ of error. . . . In our judgment, the court below ruled correctly in holding that the policy sued on was a contract made in Missouri, and, as such, that the provisions of § 5982 [the same as thp statute now in question] are applicable thereto; and therefore the judgment is affirmed, at costs of plaintiff in error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Whitfield v. Ætna Life Insurance

3. “fT]he cardinal rule of [statutory] construction [is] that where the language of an act will bear two interpretations, equally obvious, that one which is clearly in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution is to be preferred”). 7 . As plaintiff Doe pled guilty to four counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen, see' G.L. c. 265, § 13B, this Court makes no comment about the rationality Of the legislative decision to require registration for other offenses, such as open and gross lewdness. See G.L. c. 6, § 178C (defining”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Doe v. Weld