Herbring v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 district · 6 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The commissioner’s refusal to make the requested appointment was occasioned by the nonpayment of the fee of $500 required by section 6388, Or. L., as a condition precedent to the right of any fire insurance company to appoint such additional agent. The contention of respondent is that the license should issue upon compliance with the conditions prescribed by section 6333, Or. L., without the foreign insurance company complying with section 6388, Or. L., subd. 8, by paying the fee of $500 thereby required. “Chapter 203, General Laws of Oregon-1917, which is practically a fire insurance code, is a general .act 'for the regulation and supervision of insurance in the state of Oregon.’ This act contains subdivision 8, § 6388, Or. L., and also subdivision 3, § 6333, Or. L. “There is no reason suggested or conceived why a foreign insurance company .applying to do business in this state should not comply with both of the sections and subdivisions mentioned. Therefore, a foreign corporation being required to comply with the statute in order to be entitled to appoint agents and consummate its business in the state of Oregon, it follows, as the night follows the day, that in order for an agent to obtain a license to represent such a foreign corporation there must first be a compliance by the foreign corporation with the requirements of our state law. “The power of the state to impose conditions upon which a foreign fire insurance company may be permitted to do business in this state is”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. of Milwaukee v. Lee

2. ““The appellant also urges in argument, that ‘if the statute be regarded as a corporate regulation, rather than as an individual prohibition, it is unconstitutional, in that it is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious’ and cannot be sustained under the police power of the State. In other words, he seeks in argument to challenge the validity of the statute on the ground that it is an infringement of the Company’s constitutional right to appoint an additional agent. The Company itself is not here insisting that the statute constitutes an impairment of its own right; it raised no such question before the Commissioner, and for aught that appears acquiesced in that officer’s view of the validity of the statute. “It may well be that under the facts in this case Herbring’s individual interest in this question is not direct but merely collateral and remote and not such as would have entitled him to challenge the constitutional validity of the statute on the ground that it is an impairment of the Company’s own rights.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Starring v. Frazier