380 So. 2d 172 - Wright v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably 634 So. 2d 341 - Roberts v. Sewerage and Water Bd. (1994), Darlak v. Bobear (1987)
1 federal appellate · 21 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 Schlenk v. Aerial Contractors, Inc. · Walker v. City & County of San Francisco · 362 So. 2d 1154 - Gentry v. Pugh · Denenberg v. United States · 340 So. 2d 1022 - Wells v. St. Tammany Parish School Bd.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We cannot find in this instance that the State of Louisiana occupies a dual capacity, that of employer and tortfeasor. Whether maintaining the traffic signal alleged by the plaintiff to have played a causative role in the accident, or whether providing nurses for health care, the status of the State in this lawsuit is that of employer only.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee or his dependent on account of an injury, ... for which he is entitled to compensation under this Chapter, shall be exclusive of all other rights and remedies of such employee, ... against his employer, ... for said injury, ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he State of Louisiana is the real party at interest and is indistinguishable from its executive departments. Under these circumstances it is not a "third person" and cannot, therefore, possess the dual capacity of employer and third person tortfeasor. La.R.S. 23:1034; La.R.S. 23:1101.”
1 later decision 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.