Eisenhardt v. Snook’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
30 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 617 So. 2d 880 - Stobart v. State Through DOTD · 639 So. 2d 216 - Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Amb. Serv. · 455 So. 2d 1364 - Harris v. Pizza Hut of Louisiana, Inc. · 579 So. 2d 931 - Socorro v. City of New Orleans · Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e have recognized that defendants generally have no duty to protect against an open and obvious hazard. If the facts of a particular case show that the complained-of condition should be obvious to all, the condition may not | fibe unreasonably dangerous, and the defendant may owe no duty to the plaintiff. The degree to which a danger may be observed by a potential victim is one factor in the determination of whether the condition is unreasonably dangerous. A landowner is not liable for an injury which results from a condition which should have been observed by the individual in the exercise of reasonable care, or which was as obvious to a visitor as it was to the landowner. Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc., 08-0528 (La.12/2/08), 995 So.2d 1184 ; Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, 03-1533, p. 9 (La.2/20/04), 866 So.2d 228, 234 ; Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University, 95-1466, 95-1487 at p. 11 (La.5/10/96), 673 So.2d 585, 591 .”
4 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.