Bruyninckx v. Bratten’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 2016
2 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 43 U.S.C. § 1331 (Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006)
Relies on 365 So. 2d 1285 - Olsen v. Shell Oil Co. · Foster v. Breaux · Lopez v. Mike Queenan Equipment Co. · IE Miller of Eunice, Inc. v. Source Petroleum, Inc. · 546 So. 2d 291 - Lopez v. Chicago Bridge and Iron Co.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We are also not swayed by Bratten and Titan’s argument that the Louisiana legislature did not intend that LSA-R.S. 9:2772 would apply to fixed offshore drilling platforms. No such prohibition appears in the statute. Moreover, Louisiana courts have applied general Louisiana law through the Outer Continental Shelf Act to offshore platforms, extending LSA-C.C. Art. 2322 in Olsen, and similarly applying the Well Lien Act, LSA-R.S. 9:4861, in La. Materials Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 486 So.2d 776 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986), reversed on other grounds, 493 So.2d 1141 (La.1986). Our disposition herein is in conformity with those judicial pronouncements. In the end, Bratten and Titan, quoting Foster v. Breaux, 263 La. 1112 , 270 So.2d 526 (1972), contend that where there are two permissible interpretations of a prescriptive statute, we must adopt that which favors maintaining rather than barring the action. We have strictly construed LSA-R.S. 9:2772, applying it to the fact situation herein presented and find no merit to Bratten and Titan’s contention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“F. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as modifying the liability or responsibility otherwise imposed by law on the oimer of an immovable or the possessor, lessor or lessee of an immovable, by reason of the design, planning, supervision, inspection or observation of construction, or construction of improvements to immovable property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Billiot v. State
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.