American Employers' Insurance v. King Resources Co.’s Empirical Analysis
556 F.2d 471 · 1977
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2006 · most notably Merrill v. Abbott (In Re Independent Clearing House Co.) (1984), Rivercity v. Herpel (1980)
9 federal appellate · 5 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
Relies on Pepper v. Litton · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson · Case v. Los Angeles Lumber Products Co. · City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, Manhattan-Ward, Incorporated v. Grinnell Corporation, 1225 Vine Street Building, Inc. v. Grinnell Corporation
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The balance between the likelihood of plaintiffs or defendants’ success should this case go to trial vis a vis the concrete pres ent and future benefits held forth by the settlement without the expense and delay of a trial and subsequent appellate procedures. (2) The prospect of complex and protracted litigation if the settlement is not approved. (3) The proportion of the class members who do not object or who affirmatively support the proposed settlement. (4) The competency and experience of counsel who support the settlement. (5) The ratio between total benefits to the [creditors] provided by the settlement in comparison to the maximum dollar limits (6) The relative benefits to be received by individuals or groups within the class. (7) The capacity of [the insurer] to pay a judgment up the maximum limits of the subject policy but more than the dollar value it would give by virtue of the settlement. (8) The current and projected financial condition of [the debtor] .... (9) The nature and breadth of releases to be obtained ... as a result of the settlement. (10) The extent to which the settlement is truly the product of "arms-length” bargaining, and not of fraud or collusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“By June of 1973, various parties to the American (American Employers Insurance Company) rescission action, as well as parties to many related and complex lawsuits, i. e., the securities fraud class action suits and actions involving the Chapter X Reorganization proceedings, commenced private settlement negotiations. The untold time, expense and efforts of the great number of parties proved fruitful, evidenced by a settlement agreement arrived at on June 18, 1975.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“literally 'hammered out' over a period in excess of two years (involving the King Resources Company Chapter X Bankruptcy Reorganization proceedings) by some forty (40) distinct representative groups or parties holding sharp, antagonistic and conflicting interests.”
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.