88 So. 2d 467 - Johnson v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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. “"As heretofore stated, Hunter is a building contractor and in that capacity constructed for his own account and for the purpose of sale the aforesaid residence. As such builder, he is presumed to have notice and knowledge of the aforesaid defects in its construction. In Templeman Bros. Lumber Co., Inc. v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co., 129 La. 983, 1000-1001 , 57 So. 309, 315 , with reference to the knowledge of the vendor as to the defects existing in machinery sold to plaintiff, it was stated: "`The vice in the present case consisted in the inadequacy of the gas producer, and in the defective installation of the machine. Of both of these defects the defendant must be held to have had full knowledge. The manufacturer of a machine is held to the knowledge of even latent defects (35 Cyc. 401); and the inadequacy of the gas producer must be held to have been patent to the defendant, though not to the plaintiff, since plaintiff was not supposed to have, and, in fact, had, no special knowledge of machinery. And the defendant must also be held to have known that the engine had been defectively installed. It was its duty to know it, and it had full opportunity to know it. It must, therefore, be presumed to have known it. Johnson v. Marx Levy & Bro., 109 La. 1036, 1044 , 34 So. 68 .' "In Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., 129 La. 838 , 56 So. 906, 907 , 40 L.R.A., N.S., 480, the plaintiff sought damages for injuries due to poisoning from having eaten cakes and chocolate at defendant's establ”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Guillory v. Sarpy · 117 So. 2d 772 - Daly v. Abramson

2. “"It is clear from the proof in this case that the damage complained of was caused by the defective commode and/or its installation. A proper installation would have included an inspection to determine that the mechanism would properly function and automatically shut off the flowing of the water through the intake pipe before the bowl overflowed. Whatever inspection was made, as contended by defendant, did not disclose the imperfection which caused the damage. Such inspection was, therefore, inadequate for the purpose or to forestall the event or calamity which followed. The commode was, therefore, not free of vices and defects at the time the house was sold to plaintiff by defendant." 88 So.2d 467, 471 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 106 So. 2d 330 - Hunter v. Mayfield

3. “As heretofore stated, Hunter is a building contractor and in that capacity constructed for his own account and for the purpose of sale the aforesaid residence. As such builder, he is presumed to have notice and knowledge of the aforesaid defects in its construction. In Templeman Bros. Lumber Co., Inc. v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co., 129 La. 983, 1000-1001 , 57 So. 309, 315 , with reference to the knowledge of the vendor as to the defects existing in machinery sold to plaintiff, it was stated:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 117 So. 2d 772 - Daly v. Abramson