66 Wash. 2d 585 - LaPoint v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 2001 · most notably 102 Wash. 2d 477 - State Farm General Insurance v. Emerson (1984), 97 Wash. 2d 203 - Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. Wiscomb (1982)
3 federal appellate · 24 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 Continental Casualty Co. v. Phoenix Construction Co. · 165 Cal. App. 2d 152 - Bonfils v. Pacific Automobile Insurance · 13 Wash. 2d 263 - Trinity Universal Insurance v. Willrich · Seaford v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company · Behringer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While the act does not require mandatory insurance coverage, it nevertheless conveys a strong public policy implicit in its provisions. Quite simply, the statute creates a strong public policy in favor of assuring monetary protection and compensation to those persons who suffer injuries through the negligent use of public highways by others. This public policy is clearly demonstrated by the manner in which the statute operates. The financial responsibility act does not require an individual to prove that he is finandaily able to compensate those he may injure through the use of his vehicles until he is involved in an automobile accident resulting , in bodily injury or death of any person or property damage of $300 or more. RCW 46.-29.060. If such an accident occurs, the two-pronged approach of the financial responsibility act comes into play. First, if the injured or damaged person[s] submits information indicating the extent of injuries or damage within 180 days of the accident, the other party must demonstrate financial responsibility to the injured or damaged person[s]. RCW 46.29.070(2). Unless the individual already carries liability insurance coverage or an demonstrate financial responsibility in some other manner, see RCW 46.29.080, he must post an amount of security ... sufficient ... to satisfy any judgment or judgments for damages resulting from such accident as may be recovered against each driver or owner. RCW 46.29.070(1). Second, the financial responsibility act ”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“The term `public policy,' ... embraces all acts or contracts which tend clearly to injure the public health, the public morals, the public confidence in the purity of the administration of the law, or to undermine that sense of security for individual rights, whether of personal liberty or of private property, which any citizen ought to feel.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This is not a situation where it is sought to impose upon the insurance company which files an SR 22 form a liability greater than that originally contracted”
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.