Baghramain v. MFA Mutual Ins. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 2006 · most notably 353 So. 2d 1060 - Davis v. Davis (1978), Smith v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1983)
1 federal appellate · 29 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 Sumrall v. Providence Washington Ins. Co. · 186 So. 2d 328 - Doty v. Central Mutual Insurance Company · Headrick v. Pennsylvania Millers Mutual Insurance · Redding v. Cade · Delafosse v. Industrial Painters, Inc.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"To sustain the defense of arson the insurer has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that (1) the fire was of incendiary origin, and (2) plaintiff was responsible for it. Proof may be, and invariably is, by circumstantial evidence. When proof is circumstantial, the evidence must be so convincing that it will sustain no other reasonable hypothesis but that plaintiff was responsible for the fire. Sumrall v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 221 La. 633 , 60 So.2d 68 (1952)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Relevant are the importance and results of the litigation, the difficulties thereof, the degree of professional skill and ability required and exercised, the skill and experience of the attorney, the importance of the litigation to the parties involved, as well as the amount or values involved or recovered. The fee is determined by many considerations other than the time visibly employed in the litigation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In Redding v. Cade, 158 So.2d 880 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1963), this court, in effect, rejected the contingency basis for awarding reasonable attorney fees. In Redding , we were not favored with expert testimony as to a reasonable attorney's fee for that claim, and based solely on the record (since no one had reviewed plaintiff's counsel's file) we reduced the $5,000 fee awarded to $3,000. It was established in this case that plaintiff was obligated to pay a contingency fee of $15,000. Both expert witnesses testified this contingent fee was reasonable in this case. We conclude, however, that a contingency fee contract is not the basis upon which a court is to determine `reasonable attorney's fees' as that term is used in LSA-R.S. 22:658." at pg. 854”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.