Hunt v. Remsberg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The policy was made payable directly to the legal representative, subject only to the death of the wife before the death of the insured. - It was not issued to creditors but for the benefit of the estate. Whether creditors might ultimately share in it was a contingency which, if contemplated at all, was not prohibited by the statute, nor by public policy, which is not inimical to the payment of debts. The other statutory provision only declares that in the absence of an agreement or assignment to the contrary the policy shall inure to wife or children. Here the agreement to the contrary is expressly made in the contract. The statute thus recognizes the right to make insurance available to creditors if the insured so desires. Both of these statutory provisions, however, relate to insurance payable to creditors directly, and not to any contingent or pos sible benefits they may receive through the administration of an estate.”, (p. 671.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hunt v. Remsberg

2. ““We do not know why he neglected to appoint another beneficiary. We only know that he allowed to stand unchanged language which in its ordinary meaning justified the interpretation placed upon it by the insurance company, when it paid the money, and by the administrator and the probate judge who officially exercised jurisdiction over it. The ordinary meaning of the language used would lead to this conclusion, and we are unable to find anything either in the instrument where this language is used or elsewhere in the case which to our minds shows any other intent. The judgment is reversed, with directions to enter costs in favor of the defendants.” (p. 669.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hunt v. Remsberg

3. ““There is no averment in the petition that the appellees ever presented their claim in the probate court, although the sum due on this policy appeared on the inventory. A grave question is presented whether, even if the appellees were entitled to the fund, they should not have presented their claim in the probate court. The right of the administrator to collect the money is expressly held in Kelley v. Mann, 56 Iowa, 625 . The fund was thus brought within the jurisdiction of the probate court, and the question remains whether there is any breach of the bond until there is a violation of some' order of the court respecting its distribution.” (p. 673.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hunt v. Remsberg