Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 594 So. 2d 428 - Malbrough v. Wallace

594 So. 2d 428 - Malbrough v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
1
states following
June 2006
most recently cited

37 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 421 So. 2d 216 - Leenerts Farms, Inc. v. Rogers · 359 So. 2d 607 - Alexander v. Burroughs Corp. · 475 So. 2d 1085 - McDill v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. · Barnes v. Thames · 446 So. 2d 1357 - Bunch v. Town of St. Francisville

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

  1. “"The admissibility of a videotape is largely within the discretion of the trial judge. LaFleur v. John Deere Co., 491 So.2d 624, 632 (La.1986); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hi-Tower Concrete Pumping Service, 574 So.2d 424, 438 (La.App.2d Cir.), writs denied, 578 So.2d 136 , 137 (La.1991); Ashley v. Nissan Motor Corp., 321 So.2d 868, 872-873 (La. App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 323 So.2d 478 (La.1975). Determination of the admissibility into evidence of videotapes must be done on a case-by-case basis depending on the individual facts and circumstances of each case. Douglas v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 463 So.2d 5, 7 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1984). The trial court must consider whether the videotape accurately depicts what it purports to represent, whether it tends to establish a fact of the proponent's case, and whether it will aid the jury's understanding. Against those factors, the trial court must consider whether the videotape will unfairly prejudice or mislead the jury, confuse the issues, or cause undue delay. The trial court may exclude the evidence if the factors favoring admission are substantially outweighed by the factors against admission. Louisiana Code of Evidence articles 401-403; Hi-Tower, 574 So.2d at 438 ; Burk v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co., 529 So.2d 515 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 532 So.2d 179 (La. 1988)."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]n addition to our limit of liability, we will pay on behalf of a covered person: ... 3. Interest accruing after a judgment is entered in any suit we defend.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “ten percent damages on the total amount of the loss”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.