727 So. 2d 691 - Schultz v. Doyle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The supreme court has defined the doctrine of the law of the case as follows: The law of the case principle relates to (a) the binding force of trial court rulings during later stages of the trial, (b) the conclusive effects of appellate rulings at the trial on remand, and (c) the rule that an appellate court will ordinarily not reconsider its own rulings of law on a subsequent appeal in the same case. Petition of Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 278 So.2d 81, 83 (La.1973). This court has further explained the law of the case doctrine as follows: The law of the case doctrine "recognizes the binding force of trial court rulings during later stages of the trial..." Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University, 26,388, p. 1 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/10/95); 655 So.2d 659, 664 , writs granted, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.10/6/95), 661 So.2d 454 , reversed on merits, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.5/10/96), 673 So.2d 585 ; see also Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 260 La. 325 , 256 So.2d 105 (1971). The reasons for this doctrine are: (1) avoidance of indefinite litigations; (2) consistency of results in same litigation; (3) essential fairness between the parties; and, (4) judicial efficiency. Johnson v. Acadiana Ry. Co., 96-263 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/16/97) , 693 So.2d 226, 228-29 . See also Louisiana Land and Exploration Co. v. Verdin, 95-2579 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/27/96) , 681 So.2d 63 , writ denied, 96-2629 (La.12/13/96), 692 So.2d 1067 , cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1212 , 117 S.Ct. 1696 , 137 L.Ed.2d”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 767 So. 2d 102 - McPherson v. LAKE AREA MEDICAL CENTER · 769 So. 2d 110 - Kaleel v. Division Transport

2. “The law of the case doctrine “recognizes the binding force of trial court rulings during later stages of the trial ...” Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University, 26,388, p. 1 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/10/95); 655 So.2d 659, 664 , writs granted, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.10/6/95), 661 So.2d 454 , reversed on merits, 95-1466, 95-1487 (La.5/10/96), 673 So.2d 585 ; see also Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 260 La. 325 , 256 So.2d 105 (1971). The reasons for this doctrine are: (1) avoidance of indefinite litigations; (2) consistency of re-suits in same litigation; (3) essential fairness between the parties; and, (4) judicial efficiency. Johnson v. Acadiana Ry. Co., 96-263 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/16/97) , 693 So.2d 226, 228-29 . See also Louisiana Land and Exploration Co. v. Verdin, 95-2579 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/27/96) , 681 So.2d 63 , writ denied, 96-2629 (La.12/13/96), 692 So.2d 1067 , cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1212 , 117 S.Ct. 1696 , 137 L.Ed.2d 822 (1997).... “[T]he doctrine is discretionary and should not be applied where it would effectuate an obvious injustice or where the former appellate decision was clearly erroneous.” Trans Louisiana Gas Co. v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 96-1477 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/9/97) , 693 So.2d 893, 896 . Ducote v. City of Alexandria, 97-947, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/4/98), 706 So.2d 673, 674-675 , writ not considered, 98-1048 (La.5/29/98), 719 So.2d 1275 . Moreover, the doctrine applies with equal force to writ decisions as it does to judgments rendered at the c”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 741 So. 2d 838 - Burkett v. UDS Management Corp.

3. “`should not be applied where it would effectuate an obvious injustice or where the former appellate decision was clearly erroneous.' Trans Louisiana Gas Co. v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 96-1477 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/9/97) , 693 So.2d 893, 896 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 772 So. 2d 370 - Griffin v. Campbell