Cooper v. Younkin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 14 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Although Kansas courts have not confronted this issue, many other jurisdictions have, and all seem to give the same answer: a workman’s compensation carrier’s subrogation rights do not extend to actions based on uninsured motorist policies. The common thread of analysis in all these cases is that under workmen’s compensation statutes with similar language subrogation is allowed only for actions in tort; and actions based on uninsured motorist policies sound in contract, not tort____ “Although INA contends section 44-504 in no way limits its coverage to tort actions, two such limitations exist in the statute. First, the statute only applies when the injury or death was caused under circumstances creating a legal liability ‘to pay damages.’ Courts have pointed out that ‘a payment made in performance of a contractual obligation is not a payment of damages.’ Second, we think it significant that section 44-504 de dares that the failure of a workman to bring a timely suit against a third party ‘shall operate as an assignment to the employer of any cause of action in tort’ which the workman may have against the third party. The Kansas Supreme Court has held that actions based on uninsured motorist policies sound in contract. “INA emphasized that the uninsured motorist policy was paid for by the employer, Garrett-Holmes, not the employee seeking to recover. It is true that some cases emphasize the fact that the employee paid for the policy with funds out of his own pocket and is ent”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Erie Insurance Co. v. Curtis · Fryer v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.

2. “[I]t is apparent that the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals was attempting to fashion a remedy based on equitable principles. Laudable as that mo tive is, the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals is limited to the construction and application of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Minn.Stat. § 175A.01, subd. 2 (1982). Having determined that § 176.061, the only provision in the Workers’ Compensation Act for employer subrogation or for allocation of sums payable by third parties, did not apply, the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals was powerless to apply a remedy of its own devising.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hagen v. Venem

3. “[i]t is well established that an insured is entitled to full compensation before an insurer is entitled to exercise a right of subrogation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hewitt v. Apollo Group