95 So. 2d 363 - Pardue v. Norred’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * In Maher v. New Orleans Linen Supply Company, Inc., La.App. 1949, 41 So.2d 101 , the court stated motorists’ duty to look ahead and observe never ceases; they must see what they can see and in legal contemplation do see, and their failure to see what they could have seen by exercising due diligence, does not absolve them from liability for resulting injuries to others. In determining whether a motorist has exercised due care, his conduct is to be gauged in connection with the particular conditions presented to him at the time of an accident, the speed at which he is driving, the control he maintains over his automobile, and the alertness of his observation must reasonably conform to the surrounding traffic conditions. Culpepper v. Leonard Truck Lines, Inc., 1945, 208 La. 1084 , 24 So.2d 148 ; Lopreore v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., La.App.1946, 27 So.2d 737 . * * * ” Pardue v. Norred, La. App., 95 So.2d 363, 365 . See, Suire v. Winters, 233 La. 585 , 97 So.2d 404 ; Ehtor v. Parish, La.App., 86 So.2d 543 ; LeBlanc v. Jones, La.App., 79 So.2d 750 ; Howard v. Great American Indemnity Company, La.App., 106 So.2d 539 ; Geoghegan v. Greyhound Corporation, 226 La. 405 , 76 So.2d 412 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McCandless v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

2. “"The argument is not sound. The uncontradicted evidence shows Michigan Avenue has never been designated as a favored street by authorization of municipal ordinance of the Town of Jonesboro, and, therefore, under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 32:237, subd. A, of the State Highway Regulatory Act where neither of the two streets or highway is by municipal ordinance given the right-of-way over the other, the vehicle approaching the intersection from the right has the right-of-way over a vehicle approaching the intersection from the left. Brazzel v. Farrar, La.App.1952, 61 So.2d 517 ; National Retailers Mutual Insurance Company v. Harkness, La.App.1954, 76 So.2d 95 . It is admitted Pardue was traveling north and Norred west as the two vehicles entered the intersection; consequently Norred was driving the vehicle approaching the intersection from the right, and was entitled to the right-of-way."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 So. 2d 145 - State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co.