Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 367 SO2D 875 - Cousin v. Page

Cousin v. Page’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
June 1979
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Canter v. Koehring Company · American Home Assurance Company v. Czarniecki · Gay v. United Benefit Life Insurance Company · 340 So. 2d 293 - Hughes v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. · 170 So. 2d 539 - Fruge v. Woodmen of World Life Insurance Society

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

  1. “"Indeed, the application itself provides an opportunity to inquire with regard to others who will drive the insured vehicle under item No. 6, `We Need to Know These Things About People Living In Your Household (including students and military personnel) Who Operate Any Vehicle.' The only listing made by the agent who filled out the application was `Janice Batiste E. Keys.' Had the agent written `no others' or `none,' it would have indicated that he had asked her this question. However, from the record, I cannot find that this question was ever asked of Janice. The record indicates that the agent listed no other drivers, a fact he assumed because the woman was legally separated. Under the rule stated in Fruge v. Woodmen of World Life Insurance Society, 170 So.2d 539 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1965), this error is binding on the insurer and does not bind the insured." 367 So.2d at 880 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “"... This permission contained no restrictions since, in truth and in fact, the permission was for Keys to use the car as his own. The permission was of the broadest possible scope (i. e. co-ownership) and included the possibility that Keys might allow someone else to drive the car. See Hurdle v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 135 So.2d 63 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1961)." 367 So.2d at 881 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “driver, Page, under the omnibus insured clause of the policy. R.S. 22:619, which sets forth the requirements for avoidance of an insurance contract, provides in subsection A (the portion relevant to automobile liability insurance):”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.