Hooper v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Entrevia v. Hood · Herlitz Const. Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc. · 708 So. 2d 362 - Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · 866 So. 2d 228 - Hutchinson v. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, NO. 5747 · 673 So. 2d 585 - Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University
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.
“■ The burden of proof remains with the movant. However, if the- movant will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the matter that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the mov-ant’s burden on the motion does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense, but rather to point out to the court that there is an absence , of factual support for one or more elements essential to the .adverse, partjds claim,action, or defense. Thereafter, if the adverse’ party fails to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial, there is no genuine issue of material fact,”
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.