Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 729 F.2d 1132 - Home Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London

Home Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London’s Empirical Analysis

729 F.2d 1132 · 1984

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
5
states following
August 2007
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2007 · most notably 213 Ill. 2d 307 - Home Insurance v. Cincinnati Insurance (2004), Crown Center Redevelopment Corp. v. Occidental Fire & Casualty Co. (1986)

4 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

110198419902000decided

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 75 Ill. App. 3d 298 - Florsheim v. Travelers Indemnity Co. · 68 Ill. App. 3d 807 - Associated Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America · 48 Ill. 2d 71 - Putnam v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. · New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Certain Underwriters · 82 Ill. App. 3d 1003 - Royal Globe Insurance v. Aetna Insurance

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

  1. “[i]t is plain that the British Insurers are asking the impossible. Home paid $290,-000 to settle this case; there is no way to divide this figure into constituents representing [the plaintiffs] “design” theory, “manufacturing” theory, “construction” theory, and the like. Indeed the case is in the same posture as if a general verdict had been returned in favor of [the plaintiff].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If two applicable policies contain excess clauses, however, such provisions are to be disregarded as being mutually repugnant and each company is liable for a pro rata share of the liability.”
    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.