373 So. 2d 580 - Flynn v. Devore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 13 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Section 34 of the Act [LSA-R.S. 23:1032] provides that the compensation remedy is exclusive of all other rights of the employee's personal representative, his dependents or his relations. Accordingly our courts have held the compensation provided for a dependent member of the family is all that the dependent can recover upon the death of the worker. The objection that the above provision is a denial of due process of law as against non-consenting third persons has been effectively answered. The right to tort damages for wrongful death did not exist at common law or in Louisiana until it was conferred by statute. Since it is a creature of the legislature, it is subject to legislative repeal. "Where the tort plaintiff is not entitled to compensation under the terms of the Act (because, for example, dependency cannot be established) yet the same individual would be a proper claimant under Article 2315 of the Civil Code (which makes no mention of dependency), the problem is more difficult. The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that the tort rights of a non-dependent relative are extinguished by the Compensation Act even though there was no dependent relative to claim compensation. This conclusion seems justified under the language of Section 34. Furthermore, the position of the court is in accord with the idea that the Act contemplates as a reciprocal yielding by all parties affected in order to make possible the enlarged benefits provided for those whose need is greatest. A hold”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 379 So. 2d 1150 - Braxton v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.

2. “"The immunity from civil liability provided by this Section shall not extend to: 1) any officer, director, stockholder, partner or employee of such employer or principal who is not engaged at the time of the injury in the normal course and scope of his employment; and 2) to the liability of any partner in a partnership which has been formed for the purpose of evading any of the provisions of this Section." (Emphasis provided.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 396 So. 2d 543 - Fox v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.

3. “"The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee or his dependent on account of an injury ... for which he [an employee or his dependent] is entitled to compensation ... shall be exclusive of all other rights and remedies of such employee, his ... dependents, or relations against his employer, or... employee of such employer for said injury ..." Emphasis added.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 379 So. 2d 1150 - Braxton v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.