Taylor v. Rowell’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

cited by 41 later decisions

states following

February 2015

most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably 739 So. 2d 191 - Magnon v. Collins (1999), 848 So. 2d 577 - Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2003)

41 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 591 So. 2d 342 - Schroeder v. Board of Sup'rs · 550 So. 2d 577 - Penalber v. Blount · 609 So. 2d 195 - Tugwell v. State Farm Ins. Co. · 513 So. 2d 1126 - Roger v. Estate of Moulton · Potter v. FIRST FEDERAL S & L ASS'N OF SCOTLANDVILLE

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

“(1)(a)(i) No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered . . . unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto, in not less than the limits of bodily injury liability provided by the policy, under provisions filed with and approved by the commissioner of insurance, ...; however, the coverage required by this Section is not applicable when any insured named in the policy either rejects coverage, selects lower limits, or selects economic-only coverage, in the manner provided in Item (1)(a)(ii) of this Section. (Emphasis added).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 927 So. 2d 395 - Interstate Brands Corp. v. Gallow · 752 So. 2d 739 - Boullt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
“We expressly hold that UM coverage attaches to the person of the insured, not the vehicle, and that any provision of UM coverage purporting to limit insured status to instances involving a relationship to an insured vehicle contravenes La. R.S. 22:1406(D). In other words, any person who enjoys the status of insured under a Louisiana motor vehicle liability policy which includes uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage enjoys coverage protection simply by reason of having sustained injury by an uninsured/underinsured motorist. (Emphasis ours). 1”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Tedeton v. Simpson · 76 So. 3d 69 - Bernard v. Ellis
“if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Brown v. Ackel · 801 So. 2d 392 - McManus v. Southern United Fire Ins.

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.