708 So. 2d 362 - Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 150 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 154 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 712 So. 2d 62 - Aucoin v. State Through Dept. of Transp. and Dev. (1998), Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Buildings (2013)
2 federal appellate · 150 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 617 So. 2d 880 - Stobart v. State Through DOTD · Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corporation · Entrevia v. Hood · 582 So. 2d 1285 - Oster v. Dept. of Transp. & Development · Landry v. State
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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because a determination that a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm predominantly encompasses an abundance of factual findings, which differ greatly from case to case, followed by an application of those facts to a less-than-scientific standard, a reviewing court is in no better position to make the determination than the jury or trial court. Consequently, the findings of the jury or trial court should be afforded deference and we therefore hold that the ultimate determination of unreasonable risk of harm is subject to review under the manifest error standard.”
27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is common for the surfaces of streets, sidewalks, and parking lots to be irregular. It is not the duty of the party having garde of the same to eliminate all variations in elevations existing along the countless cracks, seams, joints, and curbs. These surfaces are not required to be smooth and lacking in deviations, and indeed, such a requirement would be impossible to meet. Rather, a party may only be held liable for those defects which present an unreasonable risk of harm.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage“a disputed issue of mixed fact and law or policy that is peculiarly a question for the jury or trier of the facts.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.