Yant v. Bowker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the case of Commercial Union Fire Ins. Co. v. King, 108 Ark. 130 , 156 S.W. 445 , the insurance company was defending a claim for loss due to fire on the ground that the insurance company had cancelled the policy before the fire. In that case the court said: “The notice must be given to the insured, and it should state not merely the intent to cancel, if some condition be not complied with, but it must be an actual notice of cancellation within the meaning of the policy and so unequivocal in its form, that the insured may not be left in doubt that his insurance will expire on the time limited by the terms of the notice, and that the company will not be liable for any loss after the expiration of that time.” (Emphasis supplied). No less notice should be required when the insured is the party attempting to cancel the policy. The appellant has the burden of proving the affirmative defense of cancellation of the policy in order to avoid payment of the premium, and the trial court found that the appellant failed in carrying that burden in the case at bar. The conversation of the appellant with the appellee, as testified by the appellant, indicates at most, a mere intention on the part of the appellant to cancel the policy. Certainly this is true in the absence of any showing by the appellant of any overt actions that he took in order to effectuate the cancellation of the policy. In Cooley’s Briefs on Insurance, vol. 5, p. 4647, the following rule is stated: “. . . even in case ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. American States Insurance v. Southern Guaranty Insurance