Thompson v. Tuggle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 14 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The burden of proving causation in products liability cases was clearly stated in DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins. Co., 403 So.2d 26 (La.1981) as follows: "[The] plaintiffs' burden is to prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence. This burden may be met either by direct or, as in this case, by circumstantial evidence. Jordan v. Travelers Ins. Co., 257 La. 995 , 245 So.2d 151 (1971); Naquin v. Marquette Cas. Co., 244 La. 569 , 153 So.2d 395 (1963). Taken as a whole, circumstantial evidence must exclude other reasonable hypotheses with a fair amount of certainty. This does not mean, however, that it must negate all other possible causes. Otherwise, the mere identification by the record of another possibility, although not shown to be causally active, would break the chain of causation. Weber v. Fidelity & Cas. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 259 La. 599, 608-09 , 250 So.2d 754, 757 (1971)." When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reasonable factual basis for its findings, a reviewing court should not disturb this factual finding in the absence of manifest error. Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978). The cause-in-fact of an injury is a factual question and the trial court's determination will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly erroneous. Prudhomme v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 465 So.2d 141 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1985), writ denied, 467 So.2d 1132 (La.1985)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sistler v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. · 495 So. 2d 976 - Norris v. Bell Helicopter Textron

2. “the issue of defective design is factual and depends on the circumstances of each case.... Where the testimony of the expert witnesses differs, it is largely a matter of fact for the trier of fact to determine the most credible evidence, and such finding will not be disturbed on appeal unless manifest error appears on the record.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bernstine v. Textron, Inc.