Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 795 SO2D 302 - Cleco Corp. v. Johnson

Cleco Corp. v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

36 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on La. Paddlewheels v. La. Riverboat Gaming · Forcum-James Co. v. Duke Transportation Co. · 625 So. 2d 1007 - Barrie v. VP Exterminators, Inc. · PPG Industries, Inc. v. Bean Dredging · 432 So. 2d 827 - Mott v. River Parish Maintenance, Inc.

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

  1. “In reviewing a trial court’s ruling sustaining an exception of no cause of action, the court of appeal and this court should subject the case to de novo review because the exception raises a question of law, and the lower court’s decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition. (Citations omitted).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The construction company's main argument is that its duty to avoid knocking out electrical power does not extend to the risk that one hour later, a driver at an intersection four miles away, will fail to see that traffic lights are not working and that other drivers were treating the intersection as a four-way stop, out of turn, and hurt another driver who was entering the intersection in obedience to a four-way stop rotation. To this it pleads that the company could not have known that engaging this one power line would create a general outage affecting signal lights four miles away. We reject this argument. This backhoe operator knew the risk of his backhoe knocking out power. His construction company knew or should have known the risks to people and property caused by power outages, and the predictability of widespread effects and delays in restoring power. The increased risk of an accident caused by this defendant's conduct was still present when the accident occurred. This accident to this plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable. This defendant is liable to the plaintiffs for the breach of its duty.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A trier of fact may find that there is an ease of association between a person who damages an electrical pole, causing a power surge and the damage to electrical equipment in the homes and businesses supplied with power by the damaged electrical pole.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.