Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 630 So. 2d 1271 - Rick v. STATE, DOTD

630 So. 2d 1271 - Rick v. STATE, DOTD’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

102
cited by 102 later decisions
2
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 100 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 782 So. 2d 606 - Perkins v. Entergy Corp. (2001), 703 So. 2d 566 - Graves v. Page (1997)

1 federal appellate · 100 state decisions

640199420002010decided

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 23 U.S.C. § 130 · 23 U.S.C. § 409

Relies on 549 So. 2d 840 - Rosell v. Esco · United States v. Gaubert · Berkovitz v. United States · CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood · 341 So. 2d 332 - Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.

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

  1. “A. A public entity is responsible under Civil Code Article 2317 for damages caused by the condition of buildings within its care and custody. B. Except as provided for in Subsection A of this Section, no person shall have a cause of action based solely upon liability imposed under Civil Code Article 2317 against a public entity for damages caused by the condition of things within its care and custody unless the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the particular vice or defect which caused the damage prior to the occurrence, and the public entity has had a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect and has failed to do so. C. Constructive notice shall mean the existence of facts which infer actual knowledge. D. A violation of the rules and regulations promulgated by a public entity is not negligence per se. E. "Public entity" means and includes the state and any of its branches, departments, offices, agencies, boards, commissions, instrumentalities, officers, officials, employees, and political subdivisions and the departments, offices, agencies, boards, commissions, instrumentalities, officers, officials, and employees of such political subdivisions. [7]”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Here, it is unnecessary to decide whether the DOTD had an affirmative duty because the DOTD assumed a duty to upgrade this crossing by selecting it for improvement on September 10, 1986. Once a duty is assumed, negligent breach of that duty may create liability. Harris v. Pizza Hut of La., Inc., 455 So.2d 1364 (La.1984).”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “First, a court must determine whether the action is a matter of choice. If no options are involved, the exception does not apply. If the action involves selection among alternatives, the court must determine whether the choice was policy based. Decisions at an operational level can be discretionary if based on policy.”
    5 later decisions 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.