Herrera v. Cajun Co.’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 549 So. 2d 840 - Rosell v. Esco · 660 So. 2d 7 - Resweber v. Haroil Const. Co. · 709 So. 2d 303 - Menard v. Mama's Fried Chicken · 773 So. 2d 865 - Hernandez v. Eskco, Inc. · 676 So. 2d 653 - Sumner v. Lake Charles Marine
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. It shall be unlawful for any person, for the purpose of obtaining or defeating any benefit or payment under the provisions of this Chapter, either for himself or for any other person, to willfully make a false statement or representation. * * * E. Any employee violating this Section shall, upon determination by [the] workers* compensation judge, forfeit any right to compensation benefits under this Chapter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“misstatements were not intentional and were the result of his limited ability to read relevant documents and to understand his situation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“not support imposition of the harsh remedy provided by the anti-fraud statute.”
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.