Shawver v. Shawver’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the annotation, 37 A. L. R. 2d 284, a Missouri case, Industrial Loan & Investment Co. v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co., 222 Mo. App. 1228 , 3 S. W. 2d 1046 , is cited as not in accord with the general rule, stating the view that cash surrender value could be attached and collected by a court-appointed receiver. However, when a policy gives the insured an option to take either paid-up insurance or cash surrender value, we doubt the authority of a court to authorize the choice by anyone else. The opinion used the analogy of an assignment or a pledge but in such situations the insured has voluntarily transferred his rights. Furthermore, the court’s views in that case were in the nature of dictum because the actual decision was that the sale of the insurance policy involved, under an execution, was void and the judgment of the trial court, denying plaintiff’s right to recover its cash surrender value, was affirmed. . . .” (pp. 918,919.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National Surety Corporation v. Gillette

2. ““. . . On the other hand, there is authority that the cash surrender value of a policy is not subject to garnishment, unless all of the terms on which payment of the surrender value is conditioned have been met, including conditions to be performed by insured, such as default in payment of the premiums, surrender of the policy, and demand for payment of the surrender value. . . .” [This is the general rule in the United States, citing Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas and Florida cases.] (p. 318.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National Surety Corporation v. Gillette

3. ““It is our view that the option was not exercised in this case, so as to make tire cash surrender value subject to garnishment, because there had not been compliance with the provisions of the policy which required ‘legal surrender’ of the policy by ‘submission ... to the Home Office’ as well as a ‘proper written application.’ No tender of the policy was made by defendant at anytime before he withdrew his application or even by plaintiff after inquiry was made of her where the policy was. . . .” (p. 919.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National Surety Corporation v. Gillette