Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 59 So. 2d 732 - Elba v. Thomas

59 So. 2d 732 - Elba v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
2
states following
May 1998
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently May 1998 · most notably Jones v. Continental Casualty Co. of Chicago, Ill. (1964), State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Palmer (1956)

2 federal appellate · 45 state decisions

28019521960197019801990decided

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 13 La. App. 345 - Livaudais v. Black · Bogen v. Bogen · Bogen v. . Bogen · Clinton v. City of West Monroe · State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. v. Koval

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

  1. “"`This Court can take judicial notice of what is common knowledge and human experience. Anyone who has indulged in alcoholic beverages knows that it dulls perception and reflexes to the extent that one cannot react normally to impending emergencies and dangers.'"”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"`The defendant insurer urges a separate and distinct defense against plaintiff's recovery, in that the insured violated the assistance and cooperation clause of its policy contract. There is no proof of such violation. Nor could it be urged that the insured, had he testified favorably for his wife, would have violated this clause. As was held in Levy v. Indemnity Insurance Co., La.App., 8 So.2d 774 and cited in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Koval, 10 Cir., 146 F.2d 118 , the purpose of the cooperation clause is to require the insured to disclose all the facts within his knowledge, and otherwise aid the company to determine its liability under the policy. It is not the obligation of an insured to assist the insurance company to defeat its liability. The obligation of the company is to pay the damage if liable, and not to refuse to pay it, regardless of liability. Further the lack of cooperation that would defeat recovery must be in some substantial and material respect that results in prejudice to the insurer. * * *'" (Italics ours).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"To prove that one is incapable of operating a motor vehicle, it need not be shown that he was drunk but only that he had a sufficient quantity of intoxicants to make him lose normal control of his mental and physical faculties and cause such faculties to be materially impaired."”
    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.