Kush v. American States Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
853 F.2d 1380 · 1988
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Mid-State Fertilizer Co. v. Exchange National Bank of Chicago (1989), 174 Ill. 2d 513 - Cramer v. Insurance Exchange Agency (1996)
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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 66 Ill. 2d 85 - Public Finance Corp. v. Davis · 56 Ill. App. 3d 111 - Debolt v. Mutual of Omaha · 29 Ill. App. 3d 339 - Ledingham v. Blue Cross Plan for Hospital Care of Hospital Service Corp. · Twohy v. First National Bank · 36 Ill. App. 3d 654 - Zokoych v. Spalding
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) In any action by or against a company wherein there is in issue the liability of a company on a policy or policies of insurance or the amount of the loss payable thereunder, or for an unreasonable delay, in settling a claim, and it appears to the court that such action or delay is vexatious and unreasonable, the court may allow as part of the taxable costs in the action reasonable attorney fees, other costs, plus an amount not to exceed any one of the following amounts: (a) 25% of the amount which the court or jury finds such party is entitled to recover against the company, exclusive of all costs; (b) $25,000; (c) the excess of the amount which the court or jury finds such party is entitled to recover, exclusive of costs, over the amount, if any, which the company offered to pay in settlement of the claim prior to the action.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Section 155 [767] may not be perfect. It strikes a balance between the individual insured party’s need for compensation and the broad societal interest in avoiding excessive damage awards that result in price increases to all policyholders, perhaps making some insurance prohibitively expensive for the average consumer. Kush may wish the balance struck another way, but he should address that argument to the legislature.” Id. at 1386 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[it is] not the legal theory [that] plaintiff asserts that ... determines Section 155’s preemptive effect. Instead this Court must look beyond such legal theories to the predicate acts or conduct forming the basis for that claim. If the alleged conduct is within the scope of Section 155, the claim is preempted.””
2 later decisions 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.