Coleman v. Holecek’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 10 district · 10 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'the claim should be evaluated by the insurer without looking to the policy limits and as though it alone would be responsible for the payment of any judgment rendered on the claim.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guarantee Abstract & Title Co. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. · 62 Kan. App. 2d 10 - Granados v. Wilson

2. “invalid” because they were based upon the erroneous assumption that Hoidale had only $500,000 of insurance coverage. This argument is flawed for two reasons. First, it assumes that Doll would not have settled his claim against Hoidale for an amount within primary policy limits even after the time when Doll learned of Hoidale’s excess coverage with Pacific. As already discussed, there is no evidence to support such an assumption. The only evidence on this point is the testimony of Doll’s counsel that he had authority to settle within primary policy limits throughout the trial. Second, Employers’ argument confuses the distinction between a "void” and a “voidable” contract. A void contract is one which never had any legal binding effect, whereas a voidable contract is one which may be legally avoided at the option of the wronged party. Black's Law Dictionary 1574 (6th ed. 1990). It is true that a contract based on a mistake in fact is "voidable,” at the option of the innocent party, ”[w]here the other party knows or has reason to know of the mistake or where he or she causes the mistake,____”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pacific Employers Insurance v. P.B. Hoidale Co.

3. ““The garnishor in a garnishment proceeding stands in the shoes of his debtor. Gilley v. Farmer, 207 Kan. 536 , 485 P.2d 1284, 1290 (1971). Since Holecek would have been entitled to recover his attorney’s fees had he brought the instant suit, Coleman argues that he, too, is entitled to attorney’s fees. “The language of K.S.A. 40-256 lends strong support to this argument. . . . [T]he statute does not limit its applicability to direct actions by the insured against the insurance carrier but rather provides for recovery in all actions against the carrier in which there has been an unjustified refusal to pay under the policy. Since the statute is compensatory in nature, Wolf v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association, 188 Kan. 694 , 366 P.2d 219, 226 (1961), it is only just that the garnishor as well as the insured be permitted to recover the costs of enforcing the insurance policy.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 9 Kan. App. 2d 507 - Farmco, Inc. v. Explosive Specialists, Inc.