Riley v. Frantz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is a most strong tenet in the law of this state and its jurisprudential holdings that, on appellate review, the trier of fact’s award of general damages should not be disturbed unless there is a finding in the appellate court that the trial judge has abused its vast discretion, after taking into consideration that each personal injury must be evaluated according to its own peculiar facts and circumstances. LSA-C.C. art. 1934(3); Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La. 959 , 200 So.2d 127 (1967); Ballard v. National Indemnity Company, 246 La. 963 , 169 So.2d 64 (1964); Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La. 239 , 158 So.2d 149 (1963). “The Court of Appeal in Fish v. Martin, 201 So.2d 341, 343 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1967) held: ‘ * * * that prior awards for seemingly similar injuries are relevant only insofar as they may indicate that the present award is so greatly out of proportion with them as to indicate a possible abuse of the trial court’s great discretion. Also, the appellate court should take into consideration that it is principally the function of the fact-trier to evaluate the credibility of an injured person’s complaints as to the magnitude and duration of the residual pain. * * *’ (Italics ours) “The Supreme Court in the recent case entitled Miller v. Thomas, 258 La. 285 , 246 So.2d 16 (1971) stated that in Lomenick v. Schoeffler, supra, and the cases cited therein, ‘ * * * this Court undertook to reemphasize the codal provision in a series of pronouncements designed to make clear to ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 283 So. 2d 513 - Johnson v. Blanchard

2. “[T]he law is quite clear that the injured party is required to minimize his damages. The doctrine of mitigation of damages imposes on the injured person a duty to exercise reasonable diligence and ordinary care in attempting to minimize his damages after the injury has been inflicted. The care and diligence required of him is the same as that 11swhich would be used by a man of ordinary prudence under like circumstances. He need not make extraordinary efforts or do what is unreasonable or impracticable in his efforts to minimize damages, although his efforts must be reasonable and according to the rules of common sense, good faith, and fair dealing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 19 So. 3d 1220 - Flemings v. State