Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 900 So. 2d 986 - Ledet v. Ledet

900 So. 2d 986 - Ledet v. Ledet’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 549 So. 2d 840 - Rosell v. Esco · 617 So. 2d 880 - Stobart v. State Through DOTD · 816 So. 2d 270 - Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank & Trust Company · Braxton v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION · Texas Pacific-Missouri Pacific Terminal R. v. Welsh

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

  1. “Under Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 614, a judge may question witnesses. Generally, a judge, in order to maintain the impartiality which proper trial technique demands, should be very careful, not only as to the number and type of questions propounded by him to witnesses, but also as to the manner in which they are propounded. Texas Pacific-Missouri Pacific Terminal R. of New Orleans v. Welsh , 179 F.2d 880 (5th Cir.1950) ; Patin v. DeStevens , 415 So.2d 1011 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982). In order to adjudicate a matter fairly, the trial court is well within the scope of its duty when it initiates questions from the bench. La. C.C.P. art. 1631 ; Midyett v. Midyett , 32,208, (La.App. 2nd Cir.9/22/99), 744 So.2d 669 ; LaPierre v. Gibson , 420 So.2d 990 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982), writ denied , 423 So.2d 1150 (La.1982) ; Williams v. Western Preferred Casualty Insurance Company , 465 So.2d 191 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1985). As noted by the Third Circuit in Williams : [I]n a bench trial, as in this one, the dangers inherent in questions from the bench are greatly mitigated because there is no jury to confuse or mislead. The trial judge was merely enabling himself to better understand the crucial testimony of the claimant. Ledet v. Ledet , 04-509, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/29/05), 900 So.2d 986 , 988 (quoting Williams v. Western Preferred Cas. Ins. Co. , 465 So.2d 191 , 194 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1985) ). Although David claims that the trial court exceeded its authority by asking him thirty-one quest”
    2 later decisions 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.