Chicago Title Insurance Company v. Resolution Trust Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
53 F.3d 899 · 1995
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Cross v. Cleaver (1998), Kimzey v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc (1997)
22 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 12 U.S.C. § 1819 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · In re the Discipline of Ray · Keenan v. Computer Associates International, Inc. · Henning Nelson Construction Co. v. Fireman's Fund American Life Insurance Co. · State Farm Insurance Companies v. Seefeld
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[Cjonsider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, assume that the jury resolved all conflicts of evidence in favor of that party, assume as true all facts which the prevailing party’s evidence tended to prove, give the prevailing party the benefit of all favorable inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the facts, and deny the motion, if in light of the foregoing, reasonable jurors could differ as to the conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The cases discussing the applicability of the ‘created or suffered’ exclusion generally have stated that the insurer can escape liability only if it is established that the defect, lien or encumbrance resulted from some intentional misconduct or inequitable dealings by the insured or the insured either expressly or impliedly assumed or agreed to the defects or encumbrances in the course of purchasing the property involved. The courts have not permitted the insurer to avoid liability if the insured was innocent of any conduct causing the loss or was simply negligent in bringing about the loss.”
2 later decisions 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.