122 So. 2d 699 - Parker v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Under the rules which emerged from the common law the owner of domestic animals possessed a duty which was absolute to keep them contained within his own premises and he was strictly liable for their trespass on another's land if he failed to do so. `Where my beasts of their own wrong without my will and knowledge break another's close I shall be punished, for I an the trespasser with my beasts.' 12 Hen. VII, Keilway 3b Accord; McKee v. Trisler, 1924, 311 Ill. 536 , 143 N.E. 69 , 33 A.L.R. 1298 ; Drew v. Gross, 1925, 112 Ohio St. 485 , 147 N.E. 757 ; Fox v. Koehnig, 1926, 190 Wis. 528 , 209 N.W. 708 , 49 A.L.R. 903 . Therefore, the obligation rested on the owner of domestic animals to fence his stock in and no burden was imposed upon his neighbor to keep them out. "The State of Louisiana has enacted no general statute forbidding the owners from indulging in the custom of allowing their stock to roam at large, but vests this power in the Police Juries of the respective parishes who may enact ordinances to accomplish the desired result. In this connection Article 2321 of the Louisiana Civil Code of 1870 is significant. It provides: `The owner of an animal is answerable for the damage he has caused * * *.' "It would, therefore, appear per se that Article 2321 would impose an absolute liability upon the owner of an animal, irrespective of the existence of any ordinance; however, that article has been interpreted as subject to the negligence or fault requirements of Articles 2315”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 150 So. 2d 52 - Long v. Travelers Insurance Co. · 131 So. 2d 84 - Colomb v. McDonald

2. “It would completely vitiate a stock law if the burden of proof of defendant's negligence were placed upon the passing motorist who strikes a cow on an open highway. The proof of where, when, and how the cow escaped from the enclosure is logically and fairly placed upon the individual who has a duty to keep that cow within a proper enclosure.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 838 So. 2d 67 - Buller v. AMERICAN NAT. PROPERTY & CAS. COS. · 131 So. 2d 84 - Colomb v. McDonald