Duraso v. Barbo’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 1980
14 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 183 So. 2d 57 - Campo v. Vampran · 147 So. 2d 226 - Schuster v. Audubon Insurance Company · 192 So. 2d 635 - Vander v. New York Fire & Marine Underwriters, Inc. · Seale v. Checker Cab Company · 106 So. 2d 129 - Basham v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The rule is different, however, when the motorist sees or should have seen the child near the street. For there a motorist is charged with knowledge that children playing or walking along the street may unexpectedly or unpredictably leave a position of safety for one of danger and peril. Under these circumstances a motorist is held to a higher degree of care, or better said, the highest degree of care. See Helgason v. Hartford Insurance Co., La.App., 187 So.2d 140 ; Ward v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., La.App., 189 So.2d 750 ; McBride v. Raidt, La.App., 206 So.2d 299 ; Vander v. New York Fire and Marine Underwriters Inc., La.App., 192 So.2d 635 ."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘The duty to exercise greater than ordinary care to avoid injury to a child does not become operative or exist in favor of such child until his presence is known or should have been known under the existing facts of the particular case to the operator or driver of a motor vehicle. The motorist, upon discovering the presence of children in his path of travel or in a position where they could become imperiled, is under a duty to exercise the highest degree of care to avoid injury to them. Each case must be adjudged on the facts peculiar to it. No one case is absolutely controlling of another, as few- cases are identical factually. See: Lyles v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. et al. (1961) La.App., 136 So.2d 542 ; Seale v. Checker Cab Company (1962) La.App., 137 So.2d 478 ; Smith v. Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Co. (1962) La.App., 142 So.2d 59 ; and Schuster v. Audubon Insurance Co. (1962) La.App., 147 So.2d 226 .’ ””
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.