Gunn v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To recover for actual wage loss, a plaintiff must prove the length of time missed from work due to the tort and must prove past lost earnings. Craven v. Universal Life Ins. Co., 95-1168 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/6/96); 670 So.2d 1358 , writ denied, 96-1332 (La.9/27/96); 679 So.2d 1355 . Past lost earnings are susceptible of mathematical calculation from evidence offered at trial. Id. An award for past lost earnings requires evidence as reasonably establishes the claim, which may consist of the plaintiff's own testimony. Id. An award for past lost earnings is not subject to the much-discretion rule when it is susceptible of mathematical calculation from documentary proof. Mormon v. Stine, Inc., 95-615 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/95) ; 664 So.2d 600 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 968 So. 2d 1063 - Venissat v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

2. “A tortfeasor is required to pay for medical treatment of his victim, even over treatment or unnecessary treatment, unless such treatment was incurred by the victim in bad faith. A trier of fact is in error for failing to award the full amount of medical expenses proven by the victim. A jury errs by not awarding the full amount of medical expenses incurred as a result of injuries caused by the accident when the record demonstrates that the victim has proven them by a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 8 So. 3d 57 - Dubose v. Lemoine

3. “When the tortfeasor’s conduct aggravates a pre-existing condition, the tort-feasor must compensate the victim for the full extent of the aggravation. There is a legal presumption that a medical condition producing the disability is presumed to have resulted from the accident if, before the accident the injured person was in good health, but shortly after the accident the disabling condition manifested itself. [Citations omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 8 So. 3d 57 - Dubose v. Lemoine