Peerless Insurance Company v. Joan Schnauder and Patricia Schnauder, Thru Joyce Schnauder Ernest, Their Next Friend’s Empirical Analysis
290 F.2d 607 · 1961
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 1981
7 federal appellate · 2 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 Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken · Parks v. Hall · Roberson v. United States · Dominguez v. American Casualty Co. · Waits v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[1-3] The liability of Peerless is dependent upon whether Ganaway was an ‘insured’ under the omnibus clause of the policy which included any person while using the automobile, provided the actual use was with the permission of the named insured. “The courts of Louisiana have gone far in extending coverage under the omnibus clauses of insurance policies. “[I]t is the rule that in a suit on the omnibus clause of an automobile liability policy the plaintiffs have the burden of producing evidence that the vehicle was being used with the permission of the insured owner. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Three jurors were excused because of their acquaintance with counsel for the insurance company, and it is asserted that in so doing, the court erred. One was excused because he had known the attorney ‘many, many years.’ Another had known him ‘for some time’ ‘just as a friend.’ The third knew him ‘personally’ ‘quite a number of years’ having ‘met him at different occasions,’ and at ‘social functions.’ We think the jurors were improperly excused.” 290 F.2d at 610 (Emphasis added.)”
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.