985 So. 2d 740 - Doss v. Cuevas’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 4001 (Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012)
Relies on 907 So. 2d 37 - Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Government · Ratliff v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development · 849 So. 2d 675 - Duplantis v. Dillard's Dept. Store · 785 So. 2d 842 - Dickerson v. Piccadilly Restaurants, Inc. · 928 So. 2d 140 - May v. Harris Management Corp.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“• Representation by conduct or word—Defendants contend that Mr. Boes’ actions led Mr. Chigbu to believe they reached a new agreement at their April 2010 meeting. Although this new agreement was never memorialized in writing, Mr. Chigbu sent an email which served as a follow up. In addition, when Mr. Chigbu received new invoices after sending the first checks and saw that the balance due had been reduced in accordance with the new agreement he believed was made, he was entitled to believe that the amount due was what was reflected on the new invoices. • Justifiable■ reliance—Assuming there was no new agreement, Boes, by depositing the • checks, reducing the balance due, and remaining silent when Mr. Chigbu mentioned a thir ty-sbc months’ term in his email, conducted itself in such a way as to lead Mr. Chigbu reasonably to believe that there was such an agreement. • A change in position to one’s detriment because of the reliance—Mr. Chigbu would never have made any payments to Boes if he had known that Boes would claim thousands of dollars of interest. The only reason why Gee Gee LA made any payment to Boes was because Mr. Chigbu believed there was an agreement to pay only the face amount of the Invoices. Defendants thus contend that the payments they made were of a thing not due by Gee Cee LA, an entity not liable in any way.”
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.