701 So. 2d 952 - Thompson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 state decisions

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

1. “[t]he state is not required to inspect for all trees which could fall on the road and remove them simply because they have the potential to fall onto the road.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 941 So. 2d 141 - Greer v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. · 857 So. 2d 535 - Murphree v. Daigle

2. “The district judge’s apparent misunderstanding of the DOTD’s duty was a legal error of such magnitude as to make a de novo redetermination of the facts appropriate. “[W]hen the court of appeal finds that a reversible error of law ... was made in the trial court, it is required, whenever possible, to redetermine the facts de novo from the entire record and render a judgment [97-0293-La. 5] on the merits.” Ferrell v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., 94 1252 (La.2/20/95), 650 So.2d 742, 745 (citing to Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989)). Here the trial court committed reversible error of law, inter alia, by determining that the state had a duty to clear all overhanging obstructions within the highway’s right of way. Therefore, the court of appeal’s de novo review and subsequent judgment on the merits was appropriate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 879 So. 2d 266 - Luneau v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development

3. “Furthermore, there is no evidence that the limb which contributed to this accident was noticeable or discoverable prior to the accident as a limb about to sag down into the lane of travel. Therefore, given the trial court's finding that the state had notice of only the living limbs overhanging the road, the trial court determined the living limbs themselves to be a defect and he also found that the state has a duty to trim and remove all branches which extend over the highway. Under the trial court's ruling, in order to protect against the risk posed by this particular limb the state would have had to have removed all of the overhanging limbs. The duty imposed by the trial court— that the state should remove all limbs which might fall on the road—is an incorrect application of the law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 857 So. 2d 535 - Murphree v. Daigle