First Financial Insurance v. Roach’s Empirical Analysis
80 F.3d 426 · 1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Wolf v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · Houston v. National General Insurance · 68 Okla. Crim. 308 - Ashcraft v. State · Mansfield v. Circle K. Corp. · Shadoan v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“was not ambiguous and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which clearly included 3.2 percent beer. This court affirmed the district court, rejecting the insureds' argument that §§ 163.2(a) and 506(3), which define 3.2 percent beer as a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the statutory definition of 'nonintoxicating beverages' was for the purpose of classifying beverages as a foundation for the subsequent licensing and taxing provisions, and it is neither helpful nor controlling for purposes outside that realm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he statutory classifications do nothing to change the plain and ordinary meaning afforded the term 'alcoholic beverage' in the insurance policies.”
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.