868 So. 2d 721 - Inzinna v. Walcott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A punch in and of itself is not conclusive evidence that an intentional acts exclusion applies. Likewise, acting in self-defense does not automatically negate the application of an intentional acts exclusion. [Citations omitted.] The subjective intent of the insured is the critical issue in determining whether an intentional acts exclusion applies. Further, this subjective intent is a factual determination that is the particular province of the trier of fact. The concept of intent requires a thought process, resulting in the resolution to commit a particular act. In the instant case, Mr. Walcott had no opportunity for reflection and acted spontaneously and instinctively to a sudden physical encounter, without time to form the requisite intent to commit a specific act. In considering these facts, we recognize that the instinct of self-preservation is primordial. [Emphasis added.] [T]he issue of intent is a fact-intensive issue.... It is the totality of the circumstances that determines subjective intent rather than any one factor; therefore, individual circumstances must be examined on a case-by-case basis.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 39 So. 3d 666 - Baggett v. Tassin · 986 So. 2d 256 - McCrea v. MARICHE