Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 225 F.3d 270 - Morgan Stanley Group Inc Morgan Stanley Co Incorporated v. New England Insurance Co Itt New England Management Co Inc

Morgan Stanley Group Inc Morgan Stanley Co Incorporated v. New England Insurance Co Itt New England Management Co Inc’s Empirical Analysis

225 F.3d 270 · 2000

Citation profile

114
cited by 114 later decisions
1
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc. (2002), International Multifoods Corporation v. Commercial Union Insurance Bv Llc (2002)

27 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

610200020102020decided

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 Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp. · Seiden Associates, Inc. v. Anc Holdings, Inc. · Schering Corporation v. Home Insurance Company · Fashion House, Inc. v. K Mart Corp. · Servidone Construction Corp. v. Security 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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “An ambiguity exists where the terms of an insurance contract could suggest `more than one meaning when viewed objectively by a reasonably intelligent person who has examined the context of the entire integrated agreement and who is cognizant of the customs, practices, usages and terminology as generally understood in the particular trade or business.'”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Once a court concludes that an insurance provision is ambiguous, `the court may accept any available extrinsic evidence to ascertain the meaning intended by the parties during the formation of the contract.'”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[u]nder New York law, an insurance contract is interpreted to give effect to the intent of the parties as expressed in the clear language of the contract.”
    6 later decisions 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.