80 So. 2d 206 - Reeves v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently December 1995 · most notably 339 So. 2d 780 - United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. State, Department of Highways (1976), 213 So. 2d 169 - Hall v. State, Department of Highways (1968)
45 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Jacobs v. Jacobs · Kirk v. United Gas Public Service Co. · Le Blanc v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. · Harrison v. Louisiana Highway Commission · Makofsky v. Department of Highways
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`* * * In determining what is reasonable warning, the place at which the danger exists, the nature of the road, and the general situation and circumstances surrounding it are to be taken into consideration, as are also the kind of travel and the speed at which vehicles will probably travel on the road. * * *' "(4) Aside from the dimness of the flares and the obscurity of the barricade constituting insufficient warning of the obstruction to traffic created by the road excavation, we think that most culpable is the failure under the circumstances to set out pre-warning flares or signals at a reasonable distance in advance of the obstruction, in order to alert oncoming traffic to slow their approach to this hazardous obstruction to passage on this through highway."”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“"A motorist has the right to assume that a street is safe for travel and free of obstruction. As was said in Reeves v. State, La.App.2d Cir., 1955, 80 So.2d 206, 210 , "`The general rule is also well established and recognized in the jurisprudence of this state that a motorist using a public highway has a right to presume and to act upon the presumption that the highway is safe for the usual and ordinary traffic, either in daytime or at night, and that he is not required to anticipate extraordinary danger, impediments or obstructions to which his attention has not been directed.'" (Citation of authorities omitted)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The department shall erect and maintain all signs, signals, or devices necessary for informing, directing, cautioning, and warning the traveling public."”
5 later decisions 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.