Landry v. Fuselier’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 11 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The majority holds that the plaintiff did not bear his burden of proof that at the time of the accident some of the lumber from the demolition job was intended for repair of his employer’s filling station business, admittedly hazardous under the compensation act. If such was the case, it is agreed that under Speed v. Page, 222 La. 529 , 62 So. 2d 824 , plaintiff would recover. “In the present instance, plaintiff’s employer, Hiram Fuselier, and his employer’s wife, Mrs. Fuselier (the son-in-law and daughter of plaintiff, admittedly) testified that from the first ■ before the accident some of the lum- • ber was intended for repairs of the employer’s filling station, although the testimony of Fuselier himself in this respect is somewhat ambiguous. “However, this testimony is not contradicted, and I feel that the plaintiff has borne his burden of proof. “This proof is disputed only by inference and innuendo. “The fact that Fuselier’s written statement (given to his adjuster at the time compensation was being paid to plaintiff four months after the acci'dent) did not mention, either to affirm or to deny, that such lumber was intended to be used in repairs of the filling station is to me singularly unpersuasive as indicating a contrary intention, especially since Fuselier and his wife both testified under oath and without contradiction that the statement was taken down by defendant’s adjuster based on replies by the insured to the adjuster’s questions and that they would have told”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Landry v. Fuselier