Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 637 SO2D 618 - Reid v. State Through DOTD

Reid v. State Through DOTD’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2019

23 state decisions

170199420002010decided

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 · 617 So. 2d 880 - Stobart v. State Through DOTD · Arceneaux v. Domingue · 341 So. 2d 332 - Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. · 623 So. 2d 1257 - Youn v. Maritime Overseas 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “`Damages are properly awarded if there is a scintilla of evidence of any suffering or pain on the part of the decedent by his actions or otherwise.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Section 35. Minimum safety standards of highway design, maintenance and construction; exemptions A. (1) The office of highways of the Department of Transportation and Development shall adopt minimum safety standards with respect to highway and bridge design, construction, and maintenance. These standards shall correlate with and, so far as possible, conform to the system then current as approved by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Hereafter, the state highway system shall conform to such safety standards. (2) The chief engineer may designate those highways as listed in R.S. 48:191 on the effective date of this Section for reconstruction or repair at standards which are less than those as approved by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; however, no reconstruction or repair shall be done on any highway under this Part which results in a pavement width of less than eighteen feet, and all reconstruction or repair done under this Part shall be accomplished within the existing right of way. (3) Prior to January 1, 1987, the office of highways of the Department of Transportation and Development shall adopt specific minimum safety standards with respect to highway and bridge design, construction, and maintenance for all public roads, highways, and streets under the jurisdiction of any political subdivision of this state and not in the state maintained highway system. These standards shall correlate with and, so”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In assessing the nature of the conduct of the parties, various factors may influence the degree of fault assigned, including: (1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the danger, (2) how great a risk was created by the conduct, (3) the significance of what was sought by the conduct, (4) the capacities of the actor, whether superior or inferior, and (5) any extenuating circumstances which might require the actor to proceed in haste, without proper thought. And, of course, as evidenced by concepts such as last clear chance, the relationship between the faulVnegligent conduct and the harm to the plaintiff are considerations in determining the relative fault of the parties.”
    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.