Thomas v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
22 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Strnad (1994), TMG Life Insurance v. Ashner (1995)
22 district · 14 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 Service v. Pyramid Life Insurance · Fast v. Kahan · State v. McQuillen · Havens v. Safeway Stores · Waldner v. Metropolitan Life 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The only reason for failure to return the premium at the end of the sixty days would be that the company was still contemplating issuing the policy. We cannot support a rule which would permit an insurance company to malee a decision on an application after the insured’s death. We conclude under the facts disclosed in this record that when an application for life insurance is made and the company receives the initial premium and issues a receipt therefor, a policy of temporary insurance is created and said policy of temporary insurance continues in effect until the insurance company declines the application, notifies the insured, and returns the premium, notwithstanding the provisions of the application and the receipt to the contrary.” 210 Kan. at 38 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘. . . The insurance under the policy for which application is made shall be effective on date of this receipt or the date of completion of the medical examination (if, and when required by the Company), whichever is the later date, if in the opinion of the authorized Officers of the Company at its Home Office in Webster Groves, Missouri, the Proposed Insured is insurable and acceptable for insurance under the rules and practices on the plan of insurance. . . . ‘Company shall have 60 days from date of application to consider and act upon the application. Failure of the Company to offer a policy within such 60 days shall be deemed a declination/ ” 210 Kan. at 34 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If a contract is ambiguous and is drafted by one of the parties to the contract, the contract should be strictly construed against the party who drafted it. If, however, the contract is clear and unambiguous, it requires no construction by a court. Thus, the strict construction rule is inapplicable. Failure to abide by the “clear and unambiguous” rule constitutes rewriting the contract, which a court has no authority to do.”
1 later decision 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.