Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 619 F.2d 1178 - Solo Cup Company v. Federal Insurance Company

Solo Cup Company v. Federal Insurance Company’s Empirical Analysis

619 F.2d 1178 · 1980

Citation profile

127
cited by 127 later decisions
14
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 7 district · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Voorhees v. Preferred Mutual Insurance (1992), City of Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Insurance (1984)

30 federal appellate · 7 district · 42 state decisions — followed in 14 states

57019801990200020102020decided

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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters

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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “To hold otherwise would be to place upon the insured the burden of demonstrating in advance of the underlying litigation which of the competing theories of recovery against it was applicable for purposes of insurance, thereby frustrating one of the basic purposes of such a clause in the insurance contract-protection of the insured from the expenses of litigation. [ Ibid. (quoting Solo Cup Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 619 F. 2d 1178, 1185 (7th Cir.1980)).]”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The defense obligation is triggered when the insured tenders the defense of an action against it which is potentially within the policy coverage.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “An insurer may not refuse the tendered defense of an action unless a comparison of the policy with the underlying complaint shows on its face that there is no potential for coverage.”
    3 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.