Barrois v. Noto’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “an appellee could have the judgment appealed from modified, revised or reversed only as between himself and the appellant; the appeal brought up the judgment for review only insofar as the appellant was concerned; and the judgment could be modified, revised or reversed as between the appellees only insofar as the appellant was concerned.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 221 So. 2d 607 - Morrell v. Logan Cab Co. · 250 So. 2d 197 - Lusk v. Travelers Insurance Co.

2. ““Because he was driving on a favored street, he is not to be held to as great a degree of care as was the bus driver. The rights of the motorist on a favored street were succinctly stated in Koob v. Cooperative Cab Co., 213 La. 903 , at pages 909-910, 35 So.2d 849 , at page 851: ‘The law in this state is well settled that a motorist who is proceeding on a right-of-way street, upon approaching an intersection where traffic is required under a city ordinance, and is warned by stop signs, to come to a complete stop before entering the intersection, should not be held to the same degree of care and vigilance as if no ordinance existed or stop signs were erected. The danger at such an intersection is less than that at a corner where no stop signs have been erected, and therefore less care is required of the driver on a favored street. The motorist on the right-of-way street, with knowledge of the location of such a stop sign, has a right to assume that any driver approaching the intersection from the less favored street will observe the law and bring his car to a complete stop before entering the intersection, and such motorist can indulge in this assumption until he sees, or should see, that the other car has not observed, or is not going to observe, the law. * * * ’” ( 215 So.2d 681 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 250 So. 2d 826 - Lacey v. Nettles

3. “Physical damage alone, unsupported by any competent testimony to relate the extent of the damage to the speed of the vehicle, does not support a presumption that the damaged vehicle was speeding.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 542 So. 2d 834 - Aguillard v. Frank