Annis v. Shapiro’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 2008
20 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 Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc. · 418 So. 2d 493 - Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co. · Foggin v. General Guaranty Insurance Company · Owen v. Corporation · Chavez v. Noble Drilling Corp.
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Louisiana jurisprudence dictates that in a tort action courts are to apply a "duty risk" analysis to determine whether a defendant's conduct was the legal cause of the plaintiff's injury. Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 260 La. 542 , 256 So.2d 620 (1972). Under a duty risk analysis, there are the following inquiries: (1) What, if any, duty was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff? (2) Was there a breach of the duty? (3) Was that breach a substantial cause in fact of the injury? (4) Was the risk and harm within the scope of the protection afforded by the duty breached? Jones v. Robbins, 289 So.2d 104 (La.1974); Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., supra . ; Annis v. Shapiro, 517 So.2d 1237 (La.App. 4th Cir.1987). Whether a defendant owes a plaintiff a legal duty is a question of law. Whether a defendant has breached a duty owed is a question of fact. Chavez v. Noble Drilling Corp., 567 F.2d 287 (5th Cir.1978).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“landowner is not liable for an injury sustained which results from a condition which should have been observed by the individual in the exercise of reasonable care or which was as obvious to a visitor as it was to the landowner.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“when a dangerous condition is patently obvious and easily avoidable, it can hardly be considered to present a condition creating an unreasonable risk of harm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.