Butler v. DePuy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The initial burden of proof remains with the mover to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists. However, if the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial, he need not negate all essential elements of the adverse party's claim, but rather he must point out that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the claim. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(C)(2). Once the mover has met his initial burden of proof, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden at trial. Id.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 948 So. 2d 1200 - Thierry v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Hospitals & University Medical Center of Lafayette · Brown v. RIVERLAND MEDICAL CENTER

2. “|sThe motion addresses the question as to whether the [Defendant, Jimmy Fortenberry[,] breached any duty owed to the [P]laintiff[s], in any way contributed to the accident, or failed to take reasonable actions to avoid the accident. The evidence presented from the depositions and affidavits do not show that Mr. Fortenberry in any way contributed to the accident. The accident occurred in his lane of travel[,] and, however, slight, he took all the action that he could to avoid the accident, given that he only had less than a second to react. While the burden of proof on this motion is on the mover[s], mover[s are] not required to negate all essential elements of the [P]laintiff[s’] claim[s]. In this matter[,] the mover[s have] pointed out that there are no facts to support the claim that Mr. Fortenberry had the opportunity to avoid this accident and failed to do so. Since the [Plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence that would support their claim, there is no genuine issue of material fact.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 37 So. 3d 514 - Davis v. Fortenberry · 942 So. 2d 721 - Brown v. State

3. “It is well settled that appellate courts review summary judgments de novo, using the same criteria applied by the trial courts to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Young v. Mobley · 942 So. 2d 721 - Brown v. State