Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 265 Kan. 545 - Steinle v. Knowles

Steinle v. Knowles’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2017

2 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 state decisions

140199820002010decided

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 Catholic Diocese of Dodge City v. Raymer · Gowing v. Great Plains Mutual Insurance · Kennedy & Mitchell, Inc. v. Anadarko Production Co. · Spivey v. Safeco Insurance · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Strnad

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. ““ ‘Under the present code of civil procedure, an insurer must look beyond the effect of die pleadings and must consider any facts brought to its attention or any facts which it could reasonably discover in determining whether it has a duty to defend. If those facts give rise to a “potential of liability,” even if remote, under die policy, the insurer bears a duty to defend. MGM, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 253 Kan. 198, 202 , 855 P.2d 77 (1993). The duty to defend rests primarily on die possibility that coverage exists, and the possibility of coverage must be determined by a good faith analysis of all information die insurer may know or could have reasonably ascertained. If ambiguities in coverage, including exclusionary clauses, are judicially determined against the insurer, the ultimate result controls the insurer’s duty to defend. [Citation omitted].’ ” (Quoting Spivey v. Safeco Ins. Co., 254 Kan. 237, 245-46 , 865 P.2d 182 [1993].)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]nsurance policies are to be enforced as written so long as the terms do not conflict with pertinent statutes or public policy.”
    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.