441 So. 2d 290 - Morgan v. Fuller’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

cited by 21 later decisions

states following

November 2015

most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently November 2015

1 federal appellate · 19 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 Kennedy v. Perry Timber Co. · Marks v. Collier · Thibodeaux v. Western World Ins. Co. · 79 So. 2d 650 - Case v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co. · 391 So. 2d 928 - Garrett v. Martin Timber Co., Inc.

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

“"We believe that LSA-R.S. 56:1478.1(A)-(C) means, for our purposes, that damages are assessed against a person who cuts and removes timber from another person's land without the owner's permission. The penalty of damages is levied in all such situations. The amount of the penalty depends on the circumstances of the particular timber-cutting. If the timber-cutter "wilfully and intentionally" cuts and removes the timber, he is liable for damages in "the amount of three times the fair market value" of the timber. If the timber-cutter "in good faith" cuts and removes timber "across ownership lines, marked boundary lines, or outside of designated cutting area lines," he is liable for damages for "three times the fair market value" of the timber. If the timber-cutter "in good faith" cuts and removes timber across a property line which is not visibly designated as a demarcation line between two adjacent properties, he is only liable for the fair market value of the timber. He is not liable for triple damages. It should be kept in mind that as a punitive measure, this statute must be strictly construed; it is only when a person clearly violates its provisions that he will be assessed the severe penalty of triple damages."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Saucier v. Bunkie Wood Products Co. · 471 So. 2d 1165 - Dowden v. Security Ins. Co.
“Although somewhat inartfully drafted, the statute viewed in its entirety appears to manifest an intent by the legislature to impose a severe penalty [treble damages] upon those who flagrantly disregard the property rights of timber owners. See Smith v. Myrick, 412 So.2d 677 (La.App. 2d Cir.1982); Garrett v. Martin Timber Company, Inc., 391 So.2d 928 (La.App. 2d Cir.1980).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 516 So. 2d 1256 - Jones v. Don Edwards Timber Co., Inc. · 471 So. 2d 1165 - Dowden v. Security Ins. Co.
“across ownership lines, marked boundary lines, or outside of designated cutting area lines,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Carroll v. International Paper Co. · 516 So. 2d 1256 - Jones v. Don Edwards Timber Co., Inc.

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.