Lucey v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 2006
14 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 Dixie Drive It Yourself System New Orleans Co. v. American Beverage Co. · Sanders v. Hercules Sheet Metal, Inc. · Laird v. Travelers Insurance Company · 365 So. 2d 471 - LeJeune v. Allstate Ins. Co. · Carter v. CITY PARISH GOVERNMENT, ETC.
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the arising-out-of use provision is designed to limit coverage to liability resulting from conduct of the insured which constitutes both a use of the vehicle and a legal cause of the injury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Carter holding evolved from three previous Supreme Court decisions; Fertitta v. Palmer, 252 La. 336 , 211 So.2d 282 (1968); LeJeune v. Allstate Insurance Co., 365 So.2d 471 (La.1978); and Picou v. Ferrara, 412 So.2d 1297 (La. 1982). From this quartet of Louisiana Supreme Court cases the process of resolving the use issue can be extracted. The duty/risk analysis is utilized to determine whether the insured's conduct is a legal cause of the accident, and if so, then it must be determined whether the harm arose out of the use of the vehicle. In order to answer the question of whether the injury arose from the use of the vehicle, the automobile must be essential to the theory of liability. If the duty breached by the insured flows from the use of the vehicle, then liability exists under the "arising out of provision", but if it is independent of the use of the automobile, then no liability arises from the automobile's use. McKenzie, Automobile Liability Insurance-Use, 44 La. L.R. 365 (1983). Fertitta, supra, LeJeune, supra, Picou, supra . Fertitta and subsequent cases require a common sense approach to the determination of the use question. See Tolleson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 449 So.2d 105 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984) writ denied 450 So.2d 968 (La.1984); Johns v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 349 So.2d 481 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1977).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Currera v. Loyd“As explained in Carter, supra, the issues of legal cause and use of the vehicle are distinct issues which must be addressed separately to determine the applicability of the”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Currera v. Loyd
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.