Smith v. Clement’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Mr. and Ms. Smith took steps to insure that they did not have any more children after their second child was born in August 1996. Not only were they surprised to learn that Ms. Smith was pregnant, they were not in a financial position that allowed them to deal with the prospect of another child easily. Their living quarters were too small. Neither of their vehicles was large enough to accommodate another child. During the pregnancy, an ultrasound indicated that there might be a problem with the baby. Ms. Smith was depressed during much of the pregnancy which affected her relationship with her husband and their children. She felt like she was not there for them when she should have been. Additionally, the baby was breach and had to be delivered by C-section which increased Ms. Smith’s recovery time. Under the facts presented, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 139 So. 3d 1233 - Bertrand v. Kudla

2. “An award of damages is a determination of fact which is entitled to great deference on review. There must be an abuse of discretion by the trial court before the award can be disturbed on appeal. Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., 341 So.2d 332 (La.1976). As such, “the role of an appellate court in reviewing general damages is not to decide what it considers to be an appropriate award, but rather to review the exercise of discretion by the trier of fact.” Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1260 (La.1993), writ denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 208 So. 3d 911 - Bryant v. Xtreme Machines, LLC

3. “[w]hen a plaintiff claims to have incurred medical expenses and those claims are supported by a bill, the proof is sufficient, unless there is contradictory evidence or reasonable suspicion that the bill is unrelated to the accident.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 857 So. 2d 1234 - Hall v. Folger Coffee Co.