Kobbeman v. Oleson’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Chem-Age Industries, Inc. v. Glover (2002), Bordeaux v. Shannon County Schools (2005)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 43 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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · 46 Cal. 3d 287 - Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies · Order of United Commercial Travelers of America v. Wolfe · 30 Cal. 3d 220 - Samson v. Transamerica Insurance · Griggs v. Bertram
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Covenants not to execute are different than releases, as the legal liability remains in force against those who have covenants, whereas a release represents total freedom from liability.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In some forums, prejudgment assignments of an insured's claims for bad faith have been disapproved. The rationale of the cases requiring a judgment as a condition precedent to an insured's cause of action against an insurer becomes manifest when we deal with the issue of damages in this case. We are concerned here not only with the fact of damages being clearly established, but the certainty of the amount thereof as well. Other decisions look not to the timing, but to the language of the covenant not to execute. [These decisions hold that whether] the assignment was made of a judgment in existence or a judgment to come into existence is not determinative of whether or not the insured's assignee may maintain an action against the insurance company. In bad faith refusal to settle cases, a rule mandating post judgment assignment is more imperative because, in most instances, no cause of action solidifies until judgment is rendered against an insured. On the other hand, in failure to procure insurance cases, claims may reasonably arise long before a judgment. We conclude, with assignments of causes of action for failure to procure insurance, a judgment establishing a loss is critical, but its timing is not.... In any event, so long as one ultimately obtains a judgment in the underlying action to establish the loss before proceeding to trial on the assigned claim, it is not crucial whether the judgment precedes or follows the assignment. Now we come to the final problem: With the ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“merely a contract, and not a release, such that the underlying tort liability remains and a breach of contract action lies in favor of the insured if the injured party seeks to collect his judgment.”
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.