Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 411 SO2D 26 - Thompson v. South Central Bell Tel. Co.

Thompson v. South Central Bell Tel. Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

103
cited by 103 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 96 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 441 So. 2d 192 - Lewis v. Exxon Corp. (1983), Williams v. Shell Oil Co. (1982)

5 federal appellate · 96 state decisions

5301982199020002010decided

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 372 So. 2d 1225 - Chaisson v. Domingue · 397 So. 2d 490 - Vermilion Corp. v. Vaughn · Whitaker v. Coleman · 328 So. 2d 367 - Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc. · Broadway v. City of Montgomery, Alabama

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

  1. “La.C.C.P. Art. 966; Dixie Campers, Inc. v. Vesely Co., 398 So.2d 1087 (La.1981); Chaisson v. Dominque, 372 So.2d 1225 (La.1979). Whenever there remain factual issues in dispute, a court should not grant summary judgment but should set the case for trial.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “For purposes of this Section, the word "principal" shall be defined as any person who undertakes to execute any work which is a part of his trade, business or occupation in which he was engaged at the time of the injury, or which he had contracted to perform and contracts with any person for the execution thereof.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Since the burden is on the party moving for summary judgment to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact, he must also show that the contents of his affidavit would be admissible at trial ... Ultimate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law cannot be utilized on a summary judgment motion. (Citations omitted).”
    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.