Clement v. Frey’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
333 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 333 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably 773 So. 2d 670 - Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. (2000), 765 So. 2d 1002 - Dupree v. City of New Orleans (2000)
333 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 · 341 So. 2d 332 - Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. · Gaspard v. LeMaire
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 333 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the trier of fact is owed some deference in allocating fault”
43 later decisions quote this exact passage“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 fault/negligent conduct and the harm to the plaintiff are considerations in determining the relative fault of the parties.”
38 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] de novo review, without any deference to the fact finder, is only appropriate when there is legal error implicit in the factfinding process or when a mistake of law forecloses the fact-finding process, such as when the fact finder's decision has been tainted by an improper and prejudicial jury instruction or erroneously admitted prejudicial evidence.”
6 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.