Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 954 SO2D 335 - Tanner v. Cooksey

Tanner v. Cooksey’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 549 So. 2d 840 - Rosell v. Esco · 617 So. 2d 880 - Stobart v. State Through DOTD · 582 So. 2d 1272 - Martin v. East Jefferson General Hosp. · 816 So. 2d 270 - Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank & Trust Company · 935 So. 2d 646 - Salvant v. State

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

  1. “A party who moves for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent may offer evidence in the event that the motion is not granted, without having reserved the right so to do and to the same extent as if the motion had not been made. A motion for a directed verdict that is not granted is not a waiver of trial by jury even though all parties to the action have moved for directed verdicts. A motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor. The order of the court granting a motion for a directed verdict is effective without any assent of the jury.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) The degree of knowledge or skill possessed or the degree of care ordinarily exercised by physicians, dentists, optometrists, or chiropractic physicians licensed to practice in the state of Louisiana and actively practicing in a similar community or locale and under similar circumstances; and where the defendant practices in a particular specialty and where the alleged acts of medical negligence raise issues peculiar to the particular medical specialty involved, then the plaintiff has the burden of proving the degree of care ordinarily practiced by physicians, dentists, optometrists, or chiropractic physicians within the involved medical specialty. (2) That the defendant either lacked this degree of knowledge or skill or failed to use reasonable care and diligence, along with his best judgment in the application of that skill. (3) That as a proximate result of this lack of knowledge or skill or the failure to exercise this degree of care the plain tiff suffered injuries that would not otherwise have been incurred.”
    1 later decision 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.