McAninch v. Wintermute’s Empirical Analysis
491 F.3d 759 · 2007
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2018
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Douglas Oil Company of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest · Marshall v. Marshall · Porter v. Crawford & Co. · 194 Ill. App. 3d 18 - Ratcliffe v. International Surplus Lines Insurance · Johnson v. Woodcock
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Id. at 771 . The McAninch panel explained its rationale: We conclude that an insurer may not avoid its duty to indemnify for alleged wrongful conduct merely by arguing the director was also an owner, shareholder, etc., without some explanation as to how this dual capacity relates to or facilitated the wrongful conduct alleged. To hold otherwise would invite carriers to deny coverage based on factors unrelated to the risk underwritten. Id. at 772 . Because the insurer in McAninch did not explain how the director's”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“indictment clearly alleges wrongful conduct against [the defendant] undertaken in her capacity as a director.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“by reason of any Wrongful Act solely in their capacities of Director or Officer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.