111 So. 2d 885 - Evans v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

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

1. “"The remission or conventional discharge in favor of one of the codebtors in solido, discharges all the others, unless the creditor has expressly reserved his right against the latter. "In the latter case, he can not claim the debt without making a deduction of the part of him to whom he has made the remission."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 177 So. 2d 412 - Danks v. Maher · 144 So. 2d 275 - Long v. Globe Indemnity Co.

2. “"`A driver who enters and continues to traverse an intersection without making an effort to observe what could and should be seen, is guilty of actionable negligence. In other words, there is a continuing duty to exercise care and caution. Particularly is this true where the motorist is crossing a favored or right-of-way thoroughfare. Huerstel v. L. Mangano & Co., La. App., 39 So.2d 460 ; Broughton v. Touchstone, La.App., 72 So.2d 552 ; Sonnier v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., 79 So.2d 635 . In Chase v. Burley, La.App., 76 So.2d 587 , our opinion attempted to emphasize the fact that the purpose of stopping at a stop sign is to permit the opportunity for a full and complete observation in both directions along the favored street. It is hardly necessary to set forth in words the quite obvious corollary that the act of making such observation must be continued in order to establish the assurance of safe passage across the favored highway.' "Nor do we find any merit in plaintiffs' obvious contention that the Prophit automobile pre-empted the intersection. Prior entry of an intersection, without a reasonable expectation and opportunity of negotiating the intersection in safety and without obstructing the normal movement of traffic therein does not constitute a preemption of the intersection. Broughton v. Touchstone, La.App., 72 So.2d 552 ; Harris v. Travelers Indemnity Co., of Hartford, Conn., La.App., 70 So.2d 235 ; Aucoin v. Houston Fire & Casualty Co., La.App., 44 So.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 144 So. 2d 441 - Mentel v. Boston Insurance Co.