631 So. 2d 393 - Cay v. STATE, DOTD’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 640 So. 2d 1305 - Theriot v. Lasseigne (1994), 772 So. 2d 94 - Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc. (2000)
54 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 549 So. 2d 840 - Rosell v. Esco · Arceneaux v. Domingue · Canter v. Koehring Company · Watson v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co. · Jordan v. Travelers Insurance Company
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]roof is sufficient to constitute a preponderance when the entirety of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, establishes that the fact or causation sought to be proved is more probable than not.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he reviewing court must give great weight to factual conclusions of the trier of fact; where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable. The reason for this well-settled principle of review is based not only upon the trial court's better capacity to evaluate live witnesses (as compared with the appellate court's access only to a cold record), but also upon the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between the respective courts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Here, the general manner of harm was foreseeable. The fact that the precise manner of harm (an intoxicated person's staggering or being frightened toward a bridge railing) may not have been anticipated does not break the claim of causation. W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 43 (5th ed.1984). There is an ease of association between an accidental fall over the railing of a bridge and the failure to build the railing to a height above an average person's center of gravity.”
2 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.