Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 333 SW2D 670 - Bouknight v. Langdeau

Bouknight v. Langdeau’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
June 1987
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1987

4 state decisions

30196019701980decided

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 Meaders v. Biskamp · Gateley v. Humphrey · 24 Tex. Civ. App. 331 - Northwestern Life Assurance Co. v. Sturdivant · J. E. Earnest & Co. v. Word · J. E. Earnest & Co. v. Word

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

  1. “"But we think it matters not how vigorously the insurance company may have denied its liability or asserted its determination not to pay. This cannot be made to take the place of what this statute prescribes as essential to the accrual of those penalties. These acts do not constitute a failure to pay the loss after demand made therefor, when there has been no demand. If the legislature had intended that a suit on the policy was the demand provided for, and the defense of the suit constituted a failure to pay after demand, it was useless to provide for a demand and failure to pay in order to render the company liable for these items. It would have been sufficient to provide that defendant would be liable for them if payment was not made in a reasonable time after suit. We think it was the intention of the legislature to require a demand to be made after the policy became due, and before a suit, in order to satisfy the valid demand, without putting the policy holder to the necessity of suing therefor. The demand was the significant act, intended to put the company upon election whether it would pay the sum demanded, or require the policy holder to sue therefor, and subject itself to those penalties if the plaintiff recovered judgment for such sum. We do not mean to say that the demand could not be made after suit; on the contrary, we think that the demand might be made thereafter, and a cause of action for the penalties set up by an amended petition as an original suit; but, in”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) Records Admitted. All books, records, documents and papers of any delinquent insurer received by the liquidator and held by him in the course of the delinquency proceedings, or certified copies thereof, under the hand and official seal of the Board and/or liquidator, shall be received in evidence in all cases without proof of the correctness of the same and without other proof, except the certificate of the Board and/or liquidator that the same was received from the custody of the delinquent insurer or found among its effects.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(c) Prima-facie Evidence. Such original books, records, documents and papers, or certified copies thereof, or any part thereof, when received in evidence shall be prima-facie evidence of the facts disclosed thereby.”
    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.