Foster v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Baskin v. Parker (1979), 365 So. 2d 471 - LeJeune v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1978)
2 federal appellate · 39 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 State of Louisiana Francis v. Resweber · Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. · Angle v. Chicago St P M O Ry Co · Webb v. Zurich Insurance Company · Gray v. De Bretton
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`... in compliance with a direct order of and in the personal presence of, the said sheriff...'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Foster is wrong in his contentions that a finding that Deputy Hampton was engaged in the performance of an official duty would subject the sheriff to liability under the provisions of R.S. 33:1433. R.S. 33:1433 specifically provides that no liability attaches to the sheriff beyond the bond or liability insurance furnished by the deputy unless the act or tort of the deputy was `in compliance with a direct order of, and in the personal presence of, the said sheriff, at the time the act or tort is committed.' (Emphasis added). The statute contemplates personal liability of the sheriff for those acts he personally controls; for such acts the legislature has determined that the sheriff should be answerable. The sheriff is subject to liability up to the limits of the bond or liability insurance furnished by the deputy for the official acts of the deputy which he does not directly control. No allegation is made by Foster that Hampton was acting in compliance with a direct order of and in the personal presence of the sheriff. Therefore, the sheriff cannot be held liable under the provisions of R.S. 33:1433."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“... [I]t is well settled that the deputy sheriff is an officer of the state. Williams v. Guerre, 182 La. 745 , 162 So. 609 (1935); State v. Jones, 181 La. 390 , 159 So. 594 (1935); State v. Titus, 152 La. 1011, 1016 , 95 So. 106, 107 (1922). The State, then, may be considered the deputy sheriff's `employer'. Although the doctrine of respondeat superior might be available to hold the State vicariously liable for the negligent torts of its employee in the course and scope of his employment, the State is not a party to this proceeding.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Foster v. Hampton · Nolen v. State
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.