Siebert Oxidermo, Inc. v. Shields’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Wle point out that on a daily basis defense attorneys employed by insurance carriers on behalf of policyholders are called upon to deal with matters in litigation where the interests of the policyholder and the carrier do not fully coincide. Under such circumstances the attorney's duty is, of course, to the insured whom he has been employed to represent. In response the defense bar has exhibited no inability to fully comply with both the letter and the spirit of Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. If it were otherwise we suspect the desirability of requiring carriers to supply defense counsel would have long since disappeared as a term of the policy.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Siebert Oxidermo, Inc. v. Shields

2. “"[The award entered was the result of prejudice.... # u *% * * # "It appears clear to us that the trial court did not require Shields to prove the amount of his damages, as it was required by law to do. Instead the court required Shields to establish that he had suffered damages. It then, apparently based upon the preconception that the amount of damages was controlled by the default, entered judgment for the amount of the prayer. This was error." (Emphasis in original). Siebert Oxidermo v. Shields, supra, 430 N.E.2d at 404 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Siebert Oxidermo, Inc. v. Shields

3. “[The award entered was the result of prejudice.... # u *% * * #”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Siebert Oxidermo, Inc. v. Shields