243 So. 3d 1237 - Johnson v. Tucker’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 549 So. 2d 840 - Rosell v. Esco · 561 So. 2d 76 - Buckbee v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. Inc. · 974 So. 2d 761 - Richardson v. Richardson · 71 So. 3d 317 - Robinson v. NUNLY · 71 So. 3d 407 - Simmons v. Christus Schumpert Medical Center
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The concept of substantial right, as used in Louisiana Code of Evidence article 103, is akin to the harmless error doctrine applicable in both civil and criminal matters. Error has been defined as harmless when it is trivial, formal, merely academic, and not prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party assigning it, and where it in no way affects the final outcome of the case. Prejudicial error affects the final result of the case and works adversely to a substantial right of the party assigning it. Error is prejudicial when it consists of the exclusion of evidence related to a material point in issue and adversely affects the substantial rights of the party opposed to the exclusion. (Internal citations and quotation marks omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Efferson“The determination is whether the error, when compared to the entire record, has a substantial effect on the outcome of the case, and it is the complainant's burden to so prove.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Efferson
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.