The Hartford Accident And Indemnity Company v. State Of Kansas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . An interpretation of the various sections of the Kansas Grain Warehouseman Statute leads us to conclude that all grain delivered to a licensed warehouseman which is not sold to him becomes stored grain, and that this results whether a statutory warehouse receipt is issued or whether the deposit of the grain is evidenced by such scale tickets as are involved in this case. We agree . . . that under these scale tickets the depositors of wheat did not sell their wheat and had a right to receive it back upon demand; that this wheat was held in storage subject to the orders of the holders of the scale tickets; and that with respect thereto Olson was at all times acting in his capacity as a warehouseman.” (p. 320.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stevens v. Farmers Elevator Mutual Insurance · 5 Kan. App. 2d 451 - State Ex Rel. Crawford v. Centerville Grain Co.

2. ““So also must fail the contention that the $50,000 bond was prospective and did not cover losses which had already occurred. The obligation of the bond was ‘Now, therefore, if said principal shall well and faithfully perform all of his duties as such Public Warehouseman, then this obligation to be void and of no effect; otherwise to be and remain in full force and effect.’ The obligation of the warehouseman covered by the bond was ‘to deliver the grain upon a demand made either by the holder of a receipt for the grain, or by the depositor * * * ’ This was a prospective obligation and arose in this case after the execution of the bond. [The warehouseman] breached this obligation by failing to deliver the wheat upon demand, and since the appointment of a receiver obviated the necessity of a demand, the obligation was breached when the receiver was appointed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 280 F. Supp. 523 - Farmers Elevator Mutual Insurance v. Stanford

3. “The mere fact that [the warehouseman] received for storage more grain than he had storage capacity did not result in a conversion of any particular grain or prevent any grain offered from storage from becoming stored grain. There can be no conversion of any given depositor’s grain until a demand for its delivery has been dishonored.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 786 F. Supp. 977 - Planters and Citizens Bank v. Home Ins. Co.