Robichaux v. Realty Operators, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently September 1998 · most notably Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp. (1971), 588 So. 2d 350 - Nelson v. Roadway Exp., Inc. (1991)
98 state decisions
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 Behan v. John B. Honor Co. · Barr v. Davis Bros. Lumber Co. · Jackson v. Travelers' Ins. Co. · 19 La. App. 173 - Wright v. Louisiana Ice & Utilities Co. · Hicks v. Meridian Lumber Co.
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It may seem that the only question on which the plaintiff’s suit depended was a question of fact, and hence that the writ of review should not have been granted. According to the provisions of Section 2 of Act No. 191 of 1898, p. 437, a writ of review should not be granted in any case where the correctness of the judgment of the court of appeal depends upon whether the court has decided correctly a question of fact; but, after a writ of review has been granted, we are obliged to decide the questions of fact as well as the questions of law that are tendered for decision; and to that end it is declared in the Constitution, Article 7, Section 11, that we shall have ‘the same power and authority in the case’ as if it had come here directly by appeal. Pipes v. Gallman, 174 La. 257 , 140 So. 40 . What prompted the granting of a writ of review in this case was, first, the declaration in the opinion of the court of appeal that an occurrence such as the plaintiff described as an accident would ‘be incidental to his occupation and not accidental’, and, second, the declaration: ‘The best that can be said of the development of the abscess as a result of the chopping of the wood is that it is an occupational disease which is not covered by the compensation statute.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The cane had been stripped of its leaves, and topped, and severed from the soil by the cane cutters, and was therefore a finished product, as far as the farming or agricultural process was concerned, and was completely prepared for delivery to the mill, before the plaintiff's services began. Farming is not a hazardous business or occupation, and is therefore not governed by the workmen's compensation law; but the operation of a factory or mill, including, specifically, the operation of a syrup mill, sugar house or sugar refinery, is declared to be a hazardous business or occupation, in Act No. 20 of 1914, Sec. 1, subd. 2, Dart's Stat. § 4391.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The question whether the employer's business in which the plaintiff was performing services at the time of the accident was a hazardous or a non-hazardous business depends upon whether such services as the plaintiff was performing should be classed as appertaining to the manufacturing department or as appertaining to the farming department of the business.”
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.