Cassity v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2006
16 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 Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company · Champagne v. McDonald · Wiley v. Sutphin · 68 So. 2d 626 - Calvert Fire Ins. Co. v. Hall Funeral Home · 333 So. 2d 296 - Carpenter v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"§ 24. Emergency vehicles; exceptions A. The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to an emergency call, or when in the pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, or when responding to, but not upon returning from, a fire alarm, may exercise the privileges set forth in this Section, but subject to the conditions herein stated. "B. The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may: "(1) Park or stand, irrespective of the provisions of this Chapter; "(2) Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down or stopping as may be necessary for safe operation; "(3) Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he does not endanger life or property; "(4) Disregard regulations governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions. "C. The exceptions herein granted to an authorized emergency vehicle shall apply only when such vehicle is making use of audible or visual signals sufficient to warn motorists of their approach, except that a police vehicle need not be equipped with or display a red light visible from in front of the vehicle. "D. The foregoing provisions shall not relieve the driver of an authorized vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the safety of others."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Although the driver of an emergency vehicle is authorized by LSA-R.S. 32:24 to exceed speed limits and to disregard regulations governing direction of traffic flow, the statute also expressly provides that such a driver is not relieved of the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of others. Carpenter v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 333 So.2d 296 (La.App. 1 Cir.1976). A breach of this duty will result in a finding of actionable negligence on the part of the driver. Champagne v. McDonald, 355 So.2d 1335 (La.App. 3 Cir.1978)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he duty to yield the right of way to an emergency vehicle arises only when a motorist observes or hears, or under the circumstances should have observed or heard the audible and visual warnings of such vehicle.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.