Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 158 SO2D 880 - Redding v. Cade

Redding v. Cade’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
April 1989
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 1989 · most notably Baghramain v. MFA Mutual Ins. Co. (1975), 215 So. 2d 857 - Roberie v. Ashy Construction Company (1969)

27 state decisions

160196319701980decided

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 Wright v. National Surety Corp. · Humphreys v. Marquette Casualty Co. · Fruge v. Pacific Employers Insurance Company · Cain v. Employers Casualty Company · Stevens v. Mitchell

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

  1. ““As further stated in the leading decision of Cain v. Employers Casualty Co., 236 La. 1085 , 110 So.2d 108, 111 , the penalty attorney fee is fixed and determined ‘upon the basis of the attorney’s skill and the amount of work performed by him in the prosecution and collection of the total claim’. The Cain decision also recognized that the maximum attorney fee provided by the compensation act itself (which in the interest of the claimant limits his attorney’s fees to less than that prevailing in other types of personal injury suits), is not a determining factor in the amount of penalty attorney’s fees to be assessed against the employer’s insurer which arbitrarily fails to pay compensation.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““However, the Supreme Court itself, in awarding penalties against the ‘total amount of the loss’ under LSA-R.S. 22:658 (which applies to insurers only), has always, so far as we could find, provided for such 12% penalty to be due only on weekly compensation payments then due or which might become overdue more than sixty days in the future. Seal v. Lionel F. Favret Co., 238 La. 60 , 113 So.2d 468 ; Humphreys v. Marquette Casualty Co., 235 La. 355 , 103 So.2d 895 ; Wright v. National Surety Corp., 221 La. 486 , 59 So.2d 695 .””
    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.