Suh v. Pingo Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is sometimes suggested that retrospective overruling in tort cases is unfair not only to the uninsured institutions but also to the liability insurers whose rates have been set in reliance on precedent and to the group of policyholders who will pay higher than the compensatory premiums in order to make up for the losses the insurers suffered by collecting inadequate premiums over the period to which the overruled decision retrospectively applies. But the implications of. this view make it wholly unacceptable. First, its general acceptance would in effect disable courts from creative decisions in accident law. Second, the need for protection of the reliance interest is much less significant in this context than in the context of uninsured institutions, since the risk of disastrous impact upon a particular insurer is so much less serious. Some guarantee of this appraisal appears in the fact that ordinarily it is impossible to trace the impact of particular legal doctrines upon liability insurance rates.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Vienna v. Scott Wetzel Services, Inc. · 235 W. Va. 303 - BPI, Inc. v. National Mutual Insurance Co.

2. “Moreover, any unfairness to the insurer, which is compelled to pay benefits that were not foreseen in the insurance rate structure, is at least equally balanced by the unfairness which each claimant is forced to suffer when he does not receive the benefits which the law, properly construed, affords him, and which the legislature intended to provide. Every dollar saved by an insurance carrier under an improper construction of the law is a dollar taken from the legal entitlement of a claimant. We have previously said that the Workers’ Compensation Act should be liberally construed in favor of claimants. Hood v. State, 574 P.2d 811, 813 (Alaska 1978). When the equities are evenly divided this rule of construction requires a decision in favor of the claimants.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Metcalf v. Felec Services · Vienna v. Scott Wetzel Services, Inc.

3. “2. Compare EEOC v. Texas Industries, 782 F.2d 547 , 552 (5th Cir.1986) (finding no substantial inequity where fiscal soundness of health insurance plan would not be jeopardized by retroactive relief where the overruling law "should have been seen as, at the least, a significantly realistic possibility”), with Los Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power v. Mankart, 435 U.S. 702, 719-22 , 98 S.Ct. 1370, 1380-82 , 55 L.Ed.2d 657, 672-74 (1978) (noting possible devastating effect of retroactive relief on fifty million Americans), and Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073, 1105-07 , 103 S.Ct. 3492, 3510-11 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1236, 1262-63 (1983) (noting devastating re-suits of holding employers liable retroactively).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Vienna v. Scott Wetzel Services, Inc. · Truesdell v. Halliburton Co., Inc.