Koontz v. Epperson Electric Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On August 28, 1978, Gary M. Koontz filed a complaint against his employer, Epperson Electric Company, and another employee, Richard A. Hooyman, seeking damages for his personal injury. Cumis, Mr. Koontz’ uninsured motorist carrier, was apparently served with process, because it filed an answer. On October 4, Mr. Hooyman answered, raising the affirmative defense that the injury was covered by workman’s compensation benefits which he alleged were the exclusive remedy for Mr. Koontz. On October 25, Cumis filed an answer which raised this defense and also insisted that Southern Fire afforded coverage to Mr. Hooyman, thus rendering the uninsured motorist coverage of the policy issued by Cumis inapplicable.... On March 30, 1979, Epperson answered the original complaint averring that Mr. Hooyman was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the occurrence. On April 2, Epperson answered the cross complaint of Cumis, making the same contention as in its answer to the original suit. On November 16, Cumis moved to sever the claim of Mr. Koontz against it and its cross-claim against Hooyman and Ep-person. This motion apparently was sustained orally, although the order of severance was not entered until November 30. On November 26, judgment entered which first sustained motion of counsel for Mr. Hooyman to withdraw, then allowed Mr. Koontz a voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to Epperson. Thereupon, the Court found that at the time of the accident Mr. Koontz and Mr. H”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Koontz v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc.