Daigle v. Authement’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 609 So. 2d 195 - Tugwell v. State Farm Ins. Co. · 585 So. 2d 534 - Henson v. Safeco Ins. Companies · 642 So. 2d 208 - Anderson v. Allstate Ins. Co. · Sylvester v. Mentor Corp. · 664 So. 2d 127 - Banks v. Patterson Ins. Co.
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.
“Appellee argues that the form used by Louisiana Indemnity is misleading and invalid because it did not contain a box or blank for acceptance of UM coverage. A UM form cannot foreclose the selection of available options including the selection of UM coverage. Banks v. Patterson Insurance Company, 664 So.2d at 129 . This does not stand, though, for the proposition that all UM forms must contain a box or blank for the acceptance of UM coverage. While the applicant must be given an opportunity to make a meaningful selection from the options available, it is not necessary in all instances that this be accomplished by boxes or blanks.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Longo v. Bercegeay“I HAVE BEEN OFFERED and I hereby REJECT Uninsured Motorists Bodily Injury coverage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Daigle v. Authement“UNINSURED MOTORISTS PROTECTIONCOVERAGE SELECTION”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Daigle v. Authement
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.