Knox v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 73 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Whether a document is ambiguous is a question of law initially determined by a trial court. Luschen Bldg. Assn. v. Fleming Cos., 226 Neb. 840 , 415 N.W.2d 453 (1987). ‘Regarding a question of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach a conclusion independent from a trial court’s conclusion in a judgment under review.’ Huffman v. Huffman, 232 Neb. 742, 748 , 441 N.W.2d 899, 904 (1989). See, also, Boisen v. Petersen Flying Serv., 222 Neb. 239 , 383 N.W.2d 29 (1986). “Ambiguity exists in an instrument when a word, phrase, or provision in the instrument has, or is susceptible of, at least two reasonable but conflicting interpretations or meanings. In re Estate of Walker, 224 Neb. 812 , 402 N.W.2d 251 (1987). See, also, National Farmers Union Serv. Corp. v. Edwards, 220 Neb. 231, 369 N.W.2d 76 (1985) (a document is ambiguous if, after application of the pertinent rules for construction, there is uncertainty concerning which of two or more reasonable meanings represents the intention of the parties). The fact that parties to a document have or suggest opposing interpretations of the document does not necessarily, or by itself, compel the conclusion that the document is ambiguous. Lueder Constr. Co. v. Lincoln Electric Sys., 228 Neb. 707 , 424 N. W.2d 126 (1988). If the contents of a document are unambiguous, the document is not subject to interpretation and construction, and the intention of the parties to the document must be determined from the contents of the document.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Spire v. Beermann · Hensman v. Parsons

2. “[J]udgment interest shall also accrue on decrees and judgments for the payment of money from the date of the plaintiff’s first offer of settlement which is exceeded by the judgment until the rendition of judgment if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The offer is made in writing upon the defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, to allow judgment to be taken in accordance with the terms and conditions stated in the offer; (2) The offer is made not less than ten days prior to the commencement of the trial; (3) A copy of the offer and proof of delivery to the defendant in the form of a receipt signed by the party or his or her attorney is filed with the clerk of the court in which the action is pending; and (4) The offer is not accepted prior to trial or within thirty days of the date of the offer, whichever occurs first.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Albee v. Maverick Media, Inc. · Records v. Christensen

3. ““The debtor is not a party to the guaranty, and the guarantor is not a party to the principal obligation. The ■ undertaking of the former is independent of the promise of the latter and the responsibilities which are imposed by the contract of guaranty differ from those created by the contract to which the guaranty is collateral.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 15 Neb. Ct. App. 972 - Eagle Run Square II, L.L.C. v. Lamar's Donuts International, Inc.