464 So. 2d 406 - Topole v. Eidson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The law applicable to summary judgments is set forth in Massingale v. Sibley, 449 So.2d 98, 100 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1984), as follows: The law is well settled that a motion for summary judgment should be granted if, and only if, the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966; Stallings v. W.H. Kennedy & Son, Inc., 332 So.2d 787 (La. 1976). Only when reasonable minds must inevitably conclude that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the facts before the court is a summary judgment warranted. Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., 328 So.2d 367 (La.1976). The burden of showing that there is not a genuine issue of material fact in dispute is upon the mover for summary judgment. Any doubt is resolved against the granting of a summary judgment and in favor of a trial on the merits to resolve disputed facts. Kay v. Carter, 243 La. 1095 , 150 So.2d 27 (1963). See also Quintana Petroleum Corporation v. Alpha Investments Corporation, 435 So.2d 1092 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983). If the supporting documents presented by a party moving for a summary judgment are sufficient to resolve all genuine issues of fact, the burden shifts to the opposing party to present evidence showing that material facts are still at issue. At this point, the opposing party may no lon”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 500 So. 2d 888 - University Prop. Corp. v. Fidelity Nat. Bank · 504 So. 2d 934 - Stuart v. City of Morgan City

2. ““Through the duty-risk analysis, it must be determined whether the insured’s conduct of which the plaintiff complains is a legal cause of the accident. If so, then it must be determined whether that conduct rose out of the use of a vehicle. In order for the conduct to arise out of use, the automobile must be essential to the theory of liability; the specific duty breached by the insured must flow from use of the automobile. If the specific duty breached by insured existed independently of the automobile, then liability does not arise out of use even though the duty could have been performed by use of an automobile. In the final analysis, common sense must be utilized in making the often difficult determination whether use of the automobile is an essential ingredient of the duty breached by the insured.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Reeks v. Johnson

3. “(1) Was the conduct of the insured of which the plaintiff complains a legal cause of the injury? (2) Was it a use of the automobile?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Blue v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.