Morales v. Burns’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““On Motion of The Travelers Insurance Company and The Texas Company, Defendants-Appellants, through May & Carrere, their attorneys, and, on suggesting to the Court that this case should be remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division ‘F’, for the following reasons: “That newly discovered evidence has been found, which was not available on the trial of this case, which shows conclusively that plaintiff is not disabled and was not disabled at the time of the trial below. “That the judgment below was obtained by misrepresentation on the part of plaintiff, the Appellee, herein. "That, on further suggesting to the Court that the newly discovered evidence, above referred to is as follows: “That this case was tried in the Lower Court on Wednesday, April 22, 19S3; that, at the time of the trial, plaintiff testified that he was unable to do the type of work he was doing at the time of the accident, as the result of a broken leg, which testimony on his part indicated that he had lost strength in his leg, ability to get around and agility; that plaintiff has been observed by investigators at his employment by Lane Well Service, and that motion pictures were taken of the plaintiff on August 9 and November 18, 1953, which pictures definitely show that plaintiff is in no way disabled and that his ability to move around on his injured leg is excellent and he is in no way handicapped with reference to the injured leg; that six rolls of motion pictures were made of”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Soudelier v. Travelers Ins. Co.

2. “We believe, therefore, that it may be fairly said that there is an admission that Burns was the owner of the car involved in the accident with the plaintiff's automobile. Insofar as the want of allegation and lack of proof that the driver of the Burns car was engaged in his employer's business at the time of the accident, the fact that he was driving the Burns car at the time, which is conceded, creates a presumption that he was acting in the course of his employment. Union Indemnity Co. v. Henry C. Faust, [Orleans] No. 9440, see Louisiana and Southern Digest; Norman et al. v. Little et al., 14 La. App. 298 , 129 So. 459 ; Lovoi v. R. F. Mestayer Lumber Co., Inc. et al., La. App., 185 So. 473 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 41 So. 2d 533 - Drake v. Crowley Yellow Cab Co.