Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 727 F.2d 30 - Great Lakes Container Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance

Great Lakes Container Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance’s Empirical Analysis

727 F.2d 30 · 1984

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
17
states following
October 2014
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 15 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Waste Management of Carolinas, Inc. v. Peerless Insurance (1986), Morton International, Inc. v. General Accident Insurance (1993)

25 federal appellate · 15 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 17 states

5101984199020002010decided

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 Trombly v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield · Hoyt v. New Hampshire Fire Insurance · United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Johnson Shoes, Inc. · Aetna Insurance v. State Motors, Inc.

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

  1. “(f) To bodily injury or property damage arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of ... toxic chemicals ... waste materials or other ... pollutants into or upon land, the atmo sphere or any watercourse or body of water; but this exclusion ... does not apply if such discharge, dispersal, release or escape is sudden and accidental ...”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “as a concomitant of its regular business activity,”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In light of the allegations of the complaint, the words of the policy, and the type of activity in which Great Lakes was engaged, we do not think that “a more than casual reading of the policy” by “an ordinary intelligent insured” could result in a reasonable expectation that National Union had a duty to defend Great Lakes.”
    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.