Riehl v. Travelers Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
772 F.2d 19 · 1985
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 14 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Coolspring Stone Supply, Inc. v. American States Life Insurance (1993), Wickland Oil Terminals v. Asarco, Inc. (1986)
13 federal appellate · 14 district · 6 state decisions
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 Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · Bates v. State Bar · Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co. · Ness v. Marshall · Insurance Co. of North America v. Forty-eight Insulations, 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“issues of knowledge and intent are particularly inappropriate for resolution by summary judgment, since such issues must often be resolved on the basis of inferences drawn from the conduct of the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[American Guarantee] will pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence ... and [American Guarantee] shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the insured seeking damages on account of such bodily injury or property damage, even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless, false, or fraudulent ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Before liability can be assessed or denied, the following questions of fact, among others, must be answered: 1) when were the toxic substances brought onto the property; 2) who brought the toxic substances onto the property; 3) what was the extent of [the claimant's] knowledge, if any, of toxic waste dumping; 4) whether within the meaning of the policy terms, [the claimant] `expected or intended' the pollution damage....”
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.