Warrilow v. Norrell’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Utica National Insurance Co. of Texas v. American Indemnity Co. (2004), Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (1999)
5 federal appellate · 32 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 In Re King's Estate · Pool v. Ford Motor Co. · 10 Cal. 3d 94 - State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Partridge · 48 Cal. 3d 395 - Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · Hull v. Celanese Corp.
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[T]he preservation of public trust both in the scrupulous administration of justice and in the integrity of the bar is paramount..." and "[The client's recognizably important right to counsel of his choice] must yield, however, to considerations of ethics which run to the very integrity of the judicial process."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The practice of attorneys furnishing from their own lips and on their own oaths the controlling testimony for their client is one not to be condoned by judicial silence * * * nothing short of actual corruption can more surely discredit the profession."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Coverage in a property policy is commonly provided by reference to causation, such as “loss caused by ...” certain enumerated forces. [Citation omitted]. It is precisely these physical forces that bring about the loss. [Citation omitted]. Frequently, as in the cases cited to us by Warrilow, property losses occur from more than one legally significant physical force: poultry house destroyed by wind and snow in [Travelers Indem. Co. v.] McKillip [ 469 S.W.2d 160 (Tex.1971)]; home rendered uninhabitable by contamination and an exterminator’s negligence in Auten [v. Employers Nat. Ins. Co., 722 S.W.2d 468 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986)]; and building damaged by rain and wind in [U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v.] Matchoolian [ 583 S.W.2d 692 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1979)]. In Texas, if one force is covered and one force is excluded, the insured must show that the property damage was caused solely by the insured force, or he must separate the damage caused by the insured peril from that caused by the excluded peril. [Citation omitted]. The coverage analysis in the property insurance context examines the relationship between perils, those that are covered under the policy and those that are excluded, focusing on the exclusions that limit loss coverage. [Citation omitted].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.