Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd's’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 5 district · 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Lloyd’s assertion that the majority misinterpreted certain policy provisions is insufficient to show that the amount of the awards was completely irrational. The fact that the majority may have made a mistake in citing a benefit that Lagstein had not purchased does not establish irrationality of its ultimate conclusion that Lloyd’s breached its contract. The majority provided several independent reasons for finding a breach of contract, such as Lloyds failure to advise Lagstein of the acceptance or denial of his claim within thirty days. This rationale was consistent with applicable Nevada law, see Nev.Rev.Stat. § 689A.410, and not inconsistent with the terms of Lagstein’s policy.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 730 F. Supp. 2d 1036 - Kaliroy Produce Co. v. Pacific Tomato Growers, Inc.

2. “We decline to create a rule that encourages losing parties to challenge arbitration awards on the basis of pre-existing, publicly available background information on the arbitrators that has nothing to do with the parties to the arbitration.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Ameriprise Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Brady

3. “But § 10 of the FAA 'does not sanction judicial review of the merits,' and '[w]hether or not the panel's findings are supported by the evidence in the record is beyond the scope of our review.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Pharmaniaga Berhad v. EHealthline.com, Inc.