Brown v. Ebasco Services, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 2003
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 397 So. 2d 475 - Bazley v. Tortorich · 444 So. 2d 618 - Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc. · 441 So. 2d 192 - Lewis v. Exxon Corp. · 282 So. 2d 503 - Reeves v. Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company · 436 So. 2d 525 - Benson v. Seagraves
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have no difficulty in concluding that EBASCO is the statutory employer of plaintiff. Plaintiff has apparently conceded this self-evident fact and limits his appeal to allege that it was error to find Louisiana Power and Light was also immune under R.S. 23:1032 and 1061. Indeed, there is nothing in the record to contradict the statement in the affidavit of James M. Brooks, an EBASCO construction manager, that EBASCO is in the trade, business and occupation of providing major engineering and construction services for utility companies, including design and construction of major power facilities. Brooks' affidavit also states that EBASCO entered into a contract with Louisiana Power and Light for engineering, construction and related services at Waterford 3; that EBASCO's general responsibilities included project management services, construction management, and home office engineering; and that EBASCO contracted with Tompkins-Beckwith to provide labor and materials for pipework and related services. By all definitions, EBASCO meets the requirements of a "principal" under R.S. 23:1032 and 1061.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““In short, plaintiff has stated a cause of action in negligence, not in intentional tort. He cannot claim that certain acts, because they have foreseeable consequences, were therefore intended to cause harm. To do so obliterates a major distinction between intentional tort and negligence.” “... the mere mention of the words ‘intent’ or ‘intentional’ is insufficient to state an intentional act under R.S. 23:1032, when all of the allegations clear ly demonstrate only a cause in negligence, for purposes of maintaining an exception of no cause of action.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carey v. U M C
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.