Lee v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
86 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently December 2000 · most notably 294 So. 2d 215 - Guillory v. Travelers Insurance Company (1974), 660 So. 2d 204 - Mitchell v. AT & T (1995)
86 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 McClendon v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co. · Daigle v. Moody · Buffalo Ins. Co. of Buffalo v. Bommarito · Cole v. List & Weatherly Const. Co. · Carter v. Christ
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Any employer whose liability for claims arising under the provisions of this Chapter is not covered by insurance, shall pay the amount of any claim due under the provisions of this Chapter, within sixty days after receipt of written notice. Failure to make such payment within sixty days after receipt of notice, when such failure is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause, shall subject the employer to a penalty, in addition to the amount of claim due, of 12% of the total amount of such claim, payable to the claimant, together with all reasonable attorney's fees for the prosecution and collection of such claim, or in the event a partial payment or tender has been made, 12% of the difference between the amount paid or tendered and the amount found to be due, and all reasonable attorney's fees for the prosecution and collection of such amount."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the later case of Lee v. Smith, 248 La. 16 , 176 So.2d 413 (1965), however, the supreme court stated: When an employer invokes the defense that the injured employee deliberately failed to use an adequate guard of protection against accident provided for him, the employer bears the burden of proving that the safety device was provided as such, that the employee had knowledge of its function and adequacy and deliberately failed to use it. . . . And too,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Moreno v. Simonton
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.