Carter v. Baham’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 549 So. 2d 840 - Rosell v. Esco · Arceneaux v. Domingue · 609 So. 2d 195 - Tugwell v. State Farm Ins. Co. · 513 So. 2d 1126 - Roger v. Estate of Moulton · 644 So. 2d 1086 - Carter v. Baham
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Thus, on its face, the form signed by plaintiff did not meet the requirements of Tugwell for a valid rejection of UM coverage because it failed to inform plaintiff of one of his options regarding UM coverage... USAA was unable to produce evidence to support its assertion that plaintiff received additional documents which fully informed him of all of his UM coverage options, relying instead on the testimony of its employees. (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“from his options provided by [LSA-R.S. 22:1406(D)]: (1) UM coverage equal to bodily injury limits in the policy, (2) UM coverage lower than bodily injury limits in the policy, or (3) no UM coverage. (Citations omitted. See also Carter v. Baham, 649 So.2d 967 (La.1995). In the present case, the UM rejection form signed by the authorized Benson representative states the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“failed to alert plaintiff that he had the option of selecting UM coverage at lower limits than those provided for bodily injury”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bryk v. Brock
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.