McIntosh v. McElveen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 11 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. “trial court is accorded vast discretion concerning the admission of evidence, and its decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1 So. 3d 764 - Wood v. American National Property & Casualty Ins. Co. · 972 So. 2d 1273 - MUNAR v. State Farm Ins. Co.

2. “In Morrison v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, 31,805 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/7/99), 738 So.2d 1105 , writs denied, 99-1607, 99-1622, 99-1668 (La.9/24/99), 747 So.2d 1120 , 749 So.2d 634 , 635, the second circuit explained its approval of comparing the fault of an intentional tortfeasor with that of negligent parties. The court stated: Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to apportion fault to Jessie Magee, an intentional tortfeasor, and in refusing to instruct the jury on fault apportionment as set forth by the supreme court in Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates Ltd., 93-2818 (La.11/30/94), 650 So.2d 712 . A divided supreme court in Veazey, supra, held that generally, negligent tortfeasors should not be allowed to reduce their fault by the intentional act of another when they had a duty to prevent such intentional conduct. Veazey involved the interpretation of La. C.C. art. 2323, Louisiana’s comparative fault provision, prior to its overhaul by the legislature in 1996. In the 1996 Extraordinary Legislative Session, the legislature amended Civil Code articles 2323 and 2324 to a*' require that fault be allocated to all persons causing a plaintiffs injuries (La.C.C. art. 2323) and to limit liability of each wrongdoer, with certain exceptions, to their percentage of fault.(La.C.C. art. 2324). In Keith v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 96-2075 (La.05/09/97), 694 So.2d 180 , the | ¡¡supreme court held that the 1996 revision of La.C.C. art. 2323 w”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 149 So. 3d 427 - Turner v. Shop Rite, Inc.

3. “We note what seems to be somewhat of an inconsistency in the plurality opinion in the Gregor decision. The plurality in Gregor states that Fowler v. Roberts, 556 So.2d 1 (La. 1990), and its progeny are flawed because Fowler “went to federal jurisprudence to interpret a dissimilar Louisiana state to reach the conclu sion that the immunity provided for in the Louisiana statute only exists when there is a discretionary act or function ‘grounded in social, economic, or political policy.’ ” Gregor, 851 So.2d at 967 (emphasis added). The plurality noted that the quoted language is not found in the Louisiana statute. However, when ultimately deciding the issue of immunity the plurality states the “decision in this case, that the warning over the oyster bar was in compliance with § 23:006-4, [of the sanitary code] was not a decision grounded in social, economic, or political policy. It was operational negligence in enforcing the sanitary code.” Id. at 968 (emphasis added). The plurality then goes on to cite the proposition noted in the Archon case ... one of the eases it stated was a flawed progeny of Fowler .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 629 F. Supp. 2d 601 - In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation