Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 640 SO2D 670 - Migues v. Hebert

Migues v. Hebert’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
September 2012
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 2012

7 state decisions

50199420002010decided

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 145 So. 2d 400 - Vidrine v. Simoneaux · Davis v. Galilee Baptist Church · 131 So. 2d 574 - Holland v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Gutierrez v. Columbia Casualty Co. · Garcia v. Anchor Casualty 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A motorist who is about to enter a roadway from a private driveway is required to yield the right of way to all approaching vehicles so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. Unusual, extreme, and high care toward favored traffic is required of such a motorist under the case law. Conversely, the duty of the driver on the favored street toward the intruding motorist is the much lesser ordinary care and that driver generally may rely on the assumption or presumption that those vehicles entering the roadway from less favored positions such as a private drive will not drive into the path of favored traffic. The motorist who is otherwise proceeding lawfully on the favored street is not required to look out for or search in anticipation of careless drivers who might enter his right of' way from a private driveway in violation of the statute. [La.R.S. 32:124.] The presumption or assumption may not be relied on by a motorist who is proceeding unlawfully before or after he sees the intruding vehicle. _k- • • • Furthermore, it is only in the exceptional case where the right-of-way motorist could have avoided the accident by the exercise of the very slightest degree of care that he will be considered guilty of negligence.”
    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.