869 So. 2d 87 - Lockett v. STATE, DOTD’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably 893 So. 2d 809 - Louisiana Municipal Association v. State (2005), Pumphrey v. City of New Orleans (2006)
27 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 Canter v. Koehring Company · Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co. · In Re Succession of Boyter · 624 So. 2d 874 - Chamberlain v. State, Through DOTD · 747 So. 2d 489 - Netecke v. State Ex Rel. DOTD
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The total liability of the state and political subdivisions for all damages for personal injury to any one person, including all claims and derivative claims, 2 exclusive of property damages, medical care and related benefits and loss of earnings, and loss of future earnings, as provided in this Section, shall not exceed five hundred thousand dollars, regardless of the number of suits filed • or claims made for the personal injury to that person. (2) The total liability of the state and political subdivisions for all damages for wrongful death of any one person, including all claims and derivative claims, exclusive of property damages, medical care and related benefits and loss of earnings or loss of support, and- loss of future support, as provided in this Section, shall not exceed five hundred thousand dollars, regardless of the number of suits- filed or claims made for the wrongful death of that person.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“|,-A plaintiff may proceed against the State through DOTD under either a theory of negligence or a theory of strict liability. Netecke v. State ex rel. DOTD, 98-1182, p. 7 (La.10/19/99), 747 So.2d 489, 494 . In order for DOTD to be held liable, the burden of proof is the same under either theory, and the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that: (1) DOTD had custody of the thing that caused the plaintiffs injuries or damages; (2) the thing was defective because it had a condition that created an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) DOTD had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect and failed to take corrective measures within a reasonable time; and (4) the defect in the thing was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiffs injuries.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The fundamental question in all cases of statutory interpretation is legislative intent and the ascertainment of the reason or reasons that prompted the Legislature to enact the law. In re Succession of Boyter, 99-0761, p. 9 (La.1/7/00), 756 So.2d 1122, 1128 . The rules of statutory construction are designed to ascertain and enforce the intent of the Legislature. Id.; Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044, p. 5 (La.7/7/99), 739 So.2d 762, 766 . Legislation is the solemn expression of legislative will, and therefore, interpretation of a law involves primarily a search for the Legislature’s intent. La. Rev.Stat. § 1:4 (2004); La. Civ.Code art. 2 (2004); Lockett v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development, 03-1767, p. 3 (La.2/25/04), 869 So.2d 87, 90 . When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the Legislature. La. Civ.Code art. 9 (2004); Lockett , 03-1767 at p. 3, 869 So.2d at 90-91 ; Conerly v. State, 97-0871, p. 3-4 (La.7/8/98), 714 So.2d 709, 710-11 . When the language of the law is susceptible of different meanings, it must be interpreted as having the meaning that best conforms to the purpose of the law, and the words of law must be given their generally prevailing meaning. La. Civ.Code arts. 10 and 11 (2004); Lockett , 03-1767 at p. 4, 869 So.2d at 91 ; Ruiz v. Oniate, 97-2412, p. 4 (La.5/19/98), 713 So.2d 442, 444 . When the wor”
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.