Smith v. Senst’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 10 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “One who has acted in self-defense has not used insurance coverage as a license to commit wanton and malicious acts. In fact, someone properly acting in self-defense is, by definition, not acting unreasonably. That person is not committing conduct that the intentional act exclusionary provision is intended to discourage. Consequently, if an insured can plead and prove self-defense, this will bar exclusion from coverage under an intentional acts provision of the applicable insurance policy.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Iverson

2. “Appellant at oral argument admitted that if an insured acted in self-defense the exclusion would not apply. Also * * * there is doubt he had any time to form intent, but rather acted instinctively in the form of a reflex. Accordingly, the question of intent was properly presented to the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Western Fire Insurance Co. v. Persons

3. “Prior to hitting Smith, Senst was completely removed from the scuffle. His act of striking Smith was unnecessary to protect himself and lacked the spontaneity inherent in a reflex action.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Farmers Insurance Group v. Hastings