Zumo v. Cavin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The only new proposition presented in this case is found in the argument of counsel for plaintiff that the Legislature by the passage of Act No. 179 of 1948 has ‘clarified’ the real intent of its earlier statutory pronouncements. “The Act of 1948, amendatory of the workmen’s compensation statute, included an amendment of paragraph 6 of Section 3 of Act 20 of 1914, as amended, Section 4393, Dart’s Statutes. This amendment consisted of the deletion and elimination of that portion of paragraph 6 which we emphasized in our above quotation. In our opinion in the Kennedy case we called attention to the fact that the remedy for the injustice in the effect of the laws which then existed, with respect to the denial of compensation to minors engaged in hazardous employment in violation of the prohibition of law, was a matter which addressed itself to the Legislature and not to the Courts of this State. “We are happy to note that the legislature apparently acted upon this suggestion and corrected the worki men’s compensation statute accordingly. However, since this amendment did not become effective until some two years after the accident in which the minor son of plaintiff in this case was injured, unfortunately, it can have no bearing upon his rights. “We regret that we are unable to perceive any force in the argument of plaintiff’s counsel that the amendment of 1948 should be construed in support of his contentions. On the contrary, we can only construe the amendment as effecting a ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Matthews v. Buff Hottle Shows, Inc. · 646 So. 2d 441 - Noble v. Blume Tree Services, Inc.

2. “"No minor under 18 years of age (except those indentured as apprentices in accordance with the provisions of Act 364 of 1938 of the Legislature of Louisiana) shall be employed, permitted, or suffered to work: * * * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Estaves v. Faucheux

3. “[i]n the operation of power-driven woodworking machines ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 646 So. 2d 441 - Noble v. Blume Tree Services, Inc.