Hebert v. Richard’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 16 So. 3d 1104 - Guillory v. Lee · 988 So. 2d 214 - Ryan v. Zurich American Ins. Co. · 651 So. 2d 444 - Lemoine v. Hessmer Nursing Home · 861 So. 2d 156 - CT Traina, Inc. v. Sunshine Plaza, Inc. · Blanchard v. City Parish of East Baton Rouge
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that Hebert was not in the course and scope of his employment with Industrial at the time of the accident.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“as it was not responsible for workers' compensation benefits since Mr. Hebert was not in the course and scope of his employment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Vast discretion lay with the trial court concerning whether to admit or exclude evidence and such a decision will not be reversed without a clear showing that the trial court' 'abused that discretion. “Reasonable questions as to the admissibility of evidence should be resolved in favor of receiving such evidence.” A judicial confession must be applied by the court in the proceeding in which it is made. An admission made in a prior proceeding is not considered a judicial confession, but is rather an extrajudicial admission, which is generally not binding in later proceedings. However, while not binding, extrajudicial confessions are admissible into later proceedings as evidence. While we could locate no jurisprudence directly on point, if an admission made in one judicial proceeding is admissible' as evidence against the party making it in a' later judicial proceeding, it logically follows that a statement made in a current proceeding, which is determined not to rise to the level of judicial confession, and therefore, is found not to be binding, is admissible as evidence against the party making it in the proceeding in which it was made. Moreover, even an admission-made outside of the context of a judicial proceeding is admissible as evidence it is offered against a party and is his own statement or a statement made’by á person authorized to make it. See La.Code Evid. art. 801(D)(2). [4] We find the excluded evi dence to be of high probative value in this case.... Therefore, w”
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.