62 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Barbari v. Firemen's Insurance Companygreen2 sentences1970(Here numerous cases are cited.) Accordingly, the questions presented in matters of this sort are answered by the particular facts of the controversy. * * *’ (Italics ours.) Applicable here also are the following-observations contained in Barbari v. Firemen’s Insurance Company, 107 So.2d 480, 485 (a case decided by the Court of Appeal of the First Circuit and in which a writ of review, applied for by the defendant insurance companies, was denied by this court), to-wit: ‘It would appear that mere suspicion is not sufficient to show that a fire was of incendiary origin, the facts from which infe 1961App., 107 So.2d 480, 485 (a case decided by the Court of Appeal of the First Circuit and in which a writ of review, applied for by the defendant insurance companies, was denied by this court), to-wit: `It would appear that mere suspicion is not sufficient to show that a fire was of incendiary origin, the facts from which inference or presumption are drawn, must be established in evidence and the inference or presumption to which these proven facts give rise, must be strong and almost inevitable. | 3 | 4 |
Bates v. Blitzgreen2 sentences1961In the Succession of Yeates, 213 La. 541 , 35 So.2d 210, 215 , Chief Justice Fournet as organ for the Supreme Court stated: "We think particularly applicable here the rule enunciated in the case of Bates v. Blitz, 205 La. 536 , 17 So.2d 816 , that a person failing to call available witnesses possessing peculiar knowledge of facts that are essential to the proof of the case, or to produce more explicit, direct, and satisfactory concrete evidence than that relied on although able to, raises the inference or presumption that the testimony of the absent witnesses would not sustain his contentions 1961In the Succession of Yeates, 213 La. 541 , 35 So.2d 210, 215 , Chief Justice Fournet as organ for the Supreme Court stated: "We think particularly applicable here the rule enunciated in the case of Bates v. Blitz, 205 La. 536 , 17 So.2d 816 , that a person failing to call available witnesses possessing peculiar knowledge of facts that are essential to the proof of the case, or to produce more explicit, direct, and satisfactory concrete evidence than that relied on although able to, raises the inference or presumption that the testimony of the absent witnesses would not sustain his contentions | 1 | 4 |
State v. Samgreen2 sentences2013State v. Arvie, supra at 46 ; see State v. Patterson, supra. “To impeach him by casting doubt on his defense, using his constitutional right to silence to establish an inference that the defense was fabricated, constitutes reversible error.” State v. Sam, supra at 1085 . 1985To impeach him by casting doubt on his defense, using his constitutional right to silence to establish an inference that the defense was fabricated, constitutes reversible error under State v. Sam, supra. The conviction and sentence are reversed and the matter is remanded for a new trial. | 1 | 2 |
Henderson v. HOMER MEMORIAL HOSP.green1 sentence2019App. 2 Cir. 1/27/06), 920 So.2d 988, 996 (observing that “where the plaintiffs have failed to establish a causal link between the nursing care and the harm complained of, they have also failed to show a probability that the injury would not have occurred without negligence”). 19 Reversing, this court reasoned that there was expert medical evidence, in the form of the deposition testimony of the treating radiologist, Dr. Benjamin Cooper, supporting an inference that the standard of care was violated. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pattersongreen1 sentence2013State v. Arvie, supra at 46 ; see State v. Patterson, supra. “To impeach him by casting doubt on his defense, using his constitutional right to silence to establish an inference that the defense was fabricated, constitutes reversible error.” State v. Sam, supra at 1085 . | 1 | 1 |
Daigre v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOPMENTgreen1 sentence1985Daigre v. Department of Transportation and Development, 461 So.2d 609, 612 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Fields v. Sperry Rand Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Fields v. Sperry Rand Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Stillman E. Wilbur, Jr. v. Garrell S. Mullaneygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thomas v. Gillette Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| King v. Atkinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Spurlock v. Boyce-Harvey MacHinerygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morales v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp.
green
2 sentences1988Corp., 202 La. 755 , 12 So.2d 804 , this Court aptly stated: `It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies. 1988Corp., 202 La. 755 , 12 So.2d 804 , this Court aptly stated: `It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove negligence affirmatively; and, while the inference allowed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur constitutes such proof, it is only where the circumstances leave no room for a different presumption that the rule applies. | 23 | 1943–1988 |
Baxter v. Palmigiano
green
2 sentences2010In Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 , 96 S.Ct. 1551, 1558 , 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976), the Supreme Court stated that in a civil proceeding "the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them: the Amendment ‘does not preclude the inference where the privilege is claimed by a party to a Civil cause.’ 8 J. 2010In Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 , 96 S.Ct. 1551, 1558 , 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976), the Supreme Court stated that in a civil proceeding "the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them: the Amendment ‘does not preclude the inference where the privilege is claimed by a party to a Civil cause.’ 8 J. | 4 | 1986–2010 |
State v. Rose
green
2 sentences1997State v. Collier, 553 So.2d 815 (La.1989); State v. Rose, 606 So.2d 845 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992). 1996State v. Collier, 553 So.2d 815 (La.1989); State v. Rose, 606 So.2d 845 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992). | 4 | 1994–1997 |
Succession of Yeates
neutral
2 sentences1961In the Succession of Yeates, 213 La. 541 , 35 So.2d 210, 215 , Chief Justice Fournet as organ for the Supreme Court stated: "We think particularly applicable here the rule enunciated in the case of Bates v. Blitz, 205 La. 536 , 17 So.2d 816 , that a person failing to call available witnesses possessing peculiar knowledge of facts that are essential to the proof of the case, or to produce more explicit, direct, and satisfactory concrete evidence than that relied on although able to, raises the inference or presumption that the testimony of the absent witnesses would not sustain his contentions 1961In the Succession of Yeates, 213 La. 541 , 35 So.2d 210, 215 , Chief Justice Fournet as organ for the Supreme Court stated: "We think particularly applicable here the rule enunciated in the case of Bates v. Blitz, 205 La. 536 , 17 So.2d 816 , that a person failing to call available witnesses possessing peculiar knowledge of facts that are essential to the proof of the case, or to produce more explicit, direct, and satisfactory concrete evidence than that relied on although able to, raises the inference or presumption that the testimony of the absent witnesses would not sustain his contentions | 3 | 1951–1968 |
State v. Collier
green
2 sentences1997State v. Collier, 553 So.2d 815 (La.1989); State v. Rose, 606 So.2d 845 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992). 1996State v. Collier, 553 So.2d 815 (La.1989); State v. Rose, 606 So.2d 845 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992). | 2 | 1996–1997 |
In Re WINSHIP
green
2 sentences1983A jury's inference that the presumption was mandatory and irrebuttable would alleviate the state's burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime charged, in violation of the mandate of In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). 1983A jury's inference that the presumption was mandatory and irrebuttable would alleviate the state's burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime charged, in violation of the mandate of In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). | 2 | 1981–1983 |
Hanchey v. Central Louisiana Electric Co.
green
2 sentences1970When it is shown that the accident might have happened as the result of one of two causes, the reason for the rule fails and it can not be invoked." In Hanchey v. Central Louisiana Electric Company, 218 So.2d 399 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1969), this court said: "The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be invoked only where the evidence warrants an inference that it was the defendant's negligence, rather than the acts of others for which defendant is not responsible, that caused the accident. 1969When it is shown that the accident might have happened as the result of one of two causes, the reason for the rule fails and it can not he invoked.” (Emphasis added.) And, in Hanchey v. Central Louisiana Electric Company, 218 So.2d 399 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1969), we said: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be invoked only where the evidence warrants an inference that it was the defendant’s negligence, rather than the acts of others for which defendant is not responsible, that caused the accident. | 2 | 1969–1970 |
Storm v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1968Walters v. Coen, 228 La. 931 , 84 So.2d 464 ; Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La. 1032 , 67 So.2d 582 ; Succession of Yeates, 213 La. 541 , 35 So.2d 210 ; Bates v. Blitz, 205 La. 536 , 17 So.2d 816 ; Bourgeois v. Bourgeois, 202 La. 578 , 12 So.2d 278 ; Perez v. Meraux, 201 La. 498 , 9 So.2d 662 ; Marshall v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Co., La.App., 204 So.2d 665 ; Veillon v. Sylvester, La.App., 174 So.2d 189 ; Storm v. Johnson, La.App., 23 So.2d 639 . 1965See Bates v. Blitz, 205 La. 536 , 17 So.2d 816 ; Haynes v. Modern Woodmen of America, La.App., 135 So.2d 548 ; Oatis v. Delcuze, 226 La. 751 , 77 So.2d 28 ; Morello v. Viola, La.App., 66 So.2d 29 ; Ensminger v. New Orleans Public Service, La.App., 65 So.2d 402 ; Storm v. Johnson, La.App., 23 So.2d 639 . | 2 | 1965–1968 |
Tarbox v. Eason
neutral
2 sentences1967When it is shown that the accident might have happened as the result of one of two causes, the reason for the rule fails and it can not be invoked.” See also Singleton v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 131 So.2d 329 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1961); Turner v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 161 So.2d 139 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1964); Schulingkamp v. Bolton Ford, Inc., 163 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir.1964); Tarbox v. Eason, 179 So.2d 916 (La.App. 2d Cir.1965); and D’Allesandro v. Edgar Murray Supply Co., 185 So.2d 34 (La.App. 4th Cir.1966).” In the present case the Trial Court found that the plaintiff had fai 1967When it is shown that the accident might have happened as the result of one of two causes, the reason for the rule fails and it can not be invoked." See also Singleton v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 131 So.2d 329 (La.App.3d Cir. 1961); Turner v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 161 So.2d 139 (La.App.3d Cir. 1964); Schulingkamp v. Bolton Ford, Inc., 163 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1964); Tarbox v. Eason, 179 So. 2d 916 (La.App.2d Cir. 1965); and D'Allesandro v. Edgar Murray Supply Co., 185 So.2d 34 (La.App.4th Cir. 1966). | 2 | 1967–1967 |
D'Allesandro v. Edgar Murray
green
2 sentences1967When it is shown that the accident might have happened as the result of one of two causes, the reason for the rule fails and it can not be invoked.” See also Singleton v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 131 So.2d 329 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1961); Turner v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 161 So.2d 139 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1964); Schulingkamp v. Bolton Ford, Inc., 163 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir.1964); Tarbox v. Eason, 179 So.2d 916 (La.App. 2d Cir.1965); and D’Allesandro v. Edgar Murray Supply Co., 185 So.2d 34 (La.App. 4th Cir.1966).” In the present case the Trial Court found that the plaintiff had fai 1967When it is shown that the accident might have happened as the result of one of two causes, the reason for the rule fails and it can not be invoked." See also Singleton v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 131 So.2d 329 (La.App.3d Cir. 1961); Turner v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 161 So.2d 139 (La.App.3d Cir. 1964); Schulingkamp v. Bolton Ford, Inc., 163 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1964); Tarbox v. Eason, 179 So. 2d 916 (La.App.2d Cir. 1965); and D'Allesandro v. Edgar Murray Supply Co., 185 So.2d 34 (La.App.4th Cir. 1966). | 2 | 1967–1967 |
Singleton v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation
neutral
2 sentences1967When it is shown that the accident might have happened as the result of one of two causes, the reason for the rule fails and it can not be invoked.” See also Singleton v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 131 So.2d 329 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1961); Turner v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 161 So.2d 139 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1964); Schulingkamp v. Bolton Ford, Inc., 163 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir.1964); Tarbox v. Eason, 179 So.2d 916 (La.App. 2d Cir.1965); and D’Allesandro v. Edgar Murray Supply Co., 185 So.2d 34 (La.App. 4th Cir.1966).” In the present case the Trial Court found that the plaintiff had fai 1967When it is shown that the accident might have happened as the result of one of two causes, the reason for the rule fails and it can not be invoked." See also Singleton v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 131 So.2d 329 (La.App.3d Cir. 1961); Turner v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 161 So.2d 139 (La.App.3d Cir. 1964); Schulingkamp v. Bolton Ford, Inc., 163 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1964); Tarbox v. Eason, 179 So. 2d 916 (La.App.2d Cir. 1965); and D'Allesandro v. Edgar Murray Supply Co., 185 So.2d 34 (La.App.4th Cir. 1966). | 2 | 1967–1967 |
Schulingkamp v. Bolton Ford, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1967When it is shown that the accident might have happened as the result of one of two causes, the reason for the rule fails and it can not be invoked.” See also Singleton v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 131 So.2d 329 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1961); Turner v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 161 So.2d 139 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1964); Schulingkamp v. Bolton Ford, Inc., 163 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir.1964); Tarbox v. Eason, 179 So.2d 916 (La.App. 2d Cir.1965); and D’Allesandro v. Edgar Murray Supply Co., 185 So.2d 34 (La.App. 4th Cir.1966).” In the present case the Trial Court found that the plaintiff had fai 1967When it is shown that the accident might have happened as the result of one of two causes, the reason for the rule fails and it can not be invoked." See also Singleton v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 131 So.2d 329 (La.App.3d Cir. 1961); Turner v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 161 So.2d 139 (La.App.3d Cir. 1964); Schulingkamp v. Bolton Ford, Inc., 163 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1964); Tarbox v. Eason, 179 So. 2d 916 (La.App.2d Cir. 1965); and D'Allesandro v. Edgar Murray Supply Co., 185 So.2d 34 (La.App.4th Cir. 1966). | 2 | 1967–1967 |
Turner v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1967When it is shown that the accident might have happened as the result of one of two causes, the reason for the rule fails and it can not be invoked.” See also Singleton v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 131 So.2d 329 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1961); Turner v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 161 So.2d 139 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1964); Schulingkamp v. Bolton Ford, Inc., 163 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir.1964); Tarbox v. Eason, 179 So.2d 916 (La.App. 2d Cir.1965); and D’Allesandro v. Edgar Murray Supply Co., 185 So.2d 34 (La.App. 4th Cir.1966).” In the present case the Trial Court found that the plaintiff had fai 1967When it is shown that the accident might have happened as the result of one of two causes, the reason for the rule fails and it can not be invoked." See also Singleton v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 131 So.2d 329 (La.App.3d Cir. 1961); Turner v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 161 So.2d 139 (La.App.3d Cir. 1964); Schulingkamp v. Bolton Ford, Inc., 163 So.2d 161 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1964); Tarbox v. Eason, 179 So. 2d 916 (La.App.2d Cir. 1965); and D'Allesandro v. Edgar Murray Supply Co., 185 So.2d 34 (La.App.4th Cir. 1966). | 2 | 1967–1967 |
Lockwood v. Kennedy
neutral
2 sentences1965Arrington v. Hearin Tank Lines, 80 So.2d 167 , La.App., 2d Cir. 1955; Lockwood v. Kennedy, 44 So.2d 176 , La.App., 2d Cir.1950. 1959Arrington v. Hearin Tank Lines, Inc., La.App., 80 So.2d 167 ; Lockwood v. Kennedy, La.App., 44 So.2d 176 . | 2 | 1959–1965 |
Arrington v. Hearin Tank Lines
green
2 sentences1965Arrington v. Hearin Tank Lines, 80 So.2d 167 , La.App., 2d Cir. 1955; Lockwood v. Kennedy, 44 So.2d 176 , La.App., 2d Cir.1950. 1959Arrington v. Hearin Tank Lines, Inc., La.App., 80 So.2d 167 ; Lockwood v. Kennedy, La.App., 44 So.2d 176 . | 2 | 1959–1965 |
State Ex Rel. Woodard v. Ozley
green
2 sentences1961Woodard v. Ozley, 203 La. 579 , 14 So.2d 452, 455 , this court said: “ ‘The facts from which an inference or presumption is drawn must not only be established in evidence, but the inference or presumption to which the proven facts give rise must be strong and almost inevitable.’ ” We find ourselves somewhat at variance with the conclusion of the district judge, for our appreciation of the testimony, particularly that of the defendant himself, is that he intentionally diverted acreage from plaintiff's property. 1961Woodard v. Ozley, 203 La. 579 , 14 So.2d 452, 455 , this court said: “ ‘The facts from which an inference or presumption is drawn must not only be established in evidence, but the inference or presumption to which the proven facts give rise must be strong and almost inevitable.’ ” We find ourselves somewhat at variance with the conclusion of the district judge, for our appreciation of the testimony, particularly that of the defendant himself, is that he intentionally diverted acreage from plaintiff's property. | 2 | 1958–1961 |
Ross v. Tynes
green
2 sentences1953Cited, among many others, is the case of Ross v. Tynes, La.App., 14 So.2d 80, 81 , from which we quote: “In other words, when an injury is caused by an instrumentality under the exclusive control of the defendant, as in this case, and it is such as would' not ordinarily happen if the party having cpntrol of the instrumentality had used proper care, there arises an inference or presumption -of negligence. 1950The court in that case had occasion to define the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, 14 So.2d at page 81 as follows: "In other words, when an injury is caused by an instrumentality under the exclusive control of the defendant, as in this case, and it is such as would not ordinarily happen if the party having control of the instrumentality had used proper care, there arises an inference or presumption of negligence. | 2 | 1950–1953 |
Deruise-Pierce v. Univ. Healthcare Sys., L.C.
green
2 sentences2019Deruise-Pierce, 18- 0160, p. 10, 258 So.3d at 156 .22 This court further reasoned that the trial court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that expert medical testimony was necessary because “depending upon how long Mr. Pierce was left [outside of the radiology suite], such a failure may well be one of such obvious negligence that no expert testimony would be necessary to demonstrate a breach of the standard of care.” Deruise-Pierce, 18-0160, p. 9, 258 So.3d at 155-56 . 2019Deruise-Pierce, 18- 0160, p. 10, 258 So.3d at 156 .22 This court further reasoned that the trial court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that expert medical testimony was necessary because “depending upon how long Mr. Pierce was left [outside of the radiology suite], such a failure may well be one of such obvious negligence that no expert testimony would be necessary to demonstrate a breach of the standard of care.” Deruise-Pierce, 18-0160, p. 9, 258 So.3d at 155-56 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Arvie
green
1 sentence2013State v. Arvie, supra at 46 ; see State v. Patterson, supra. “To impeach him by casting doubt on his defense, using his constitutional right to silence to establish an inference that the defense was fabricated, constitutes reversible error.” State v. Sam, supra at 1085 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Boyd v. Boyd
green
1 sentence1999Wigmore, Evidence 439.” | ^Moreover, this U.S. Supreme Court decision has been cited by various Louisiana cases for this very proposition: in Miles v. Louisiana Landscape Specialty, 697 So.2d 348 (La.App. 5 Cir., 1997) the appellate court held that the trial court appropriately applied this adverse inference upon defendant’s failure to appear for a civil deposition, based on 5th Amendment grounds, shortly before his criminal trial even though he had agreed to be deposed after his criminal trial 2 ; in Boyd v. Boyd, 647 So.2d 414 (La.App. 2 Cir., 1994) the appellate court held that a “negative | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Miles v. Louisiana Landscape Specialty
green
1 sentence1999Wigmore, Evidence 439.” | ^Moreover, this U.S. Supreme Court decision has been cited by various Louisiana cases for this very proposition: in Miles v. Louisiana Landscape Specialty, 697 So.2d 348 (La.App. 5 Cir., 1997) the appellate court held that the trial court appropriately applied this adverse inference upon defendant’s failure to appear for a civil deposition, based on 5th Amendment grounds, shortly before his criminal trial even though he had agreed to be deposed after his criminal trial 2 ; in Boyd v. Boyd, 647 So.2d 414 (La.App. 2 Cir., 1994) the appellate court held that a “negative | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Perez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
1 sentence1994Perez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 608 So.2d 1006 (La.1992). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Taylor
green
1 sentence1989State v, Coleman, 358 So.2d 289 (La.1978); State v. Taylor, 363 So.2d 699 (La.1978). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Coleman
green
1 sentence1989State v, Coleman, 358 So.2d 289 (La.1978); State v. Taylor, 363 So.2d 699 (La.1978). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. Heads green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| White v. McCool green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| State v. Odom green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| United States v. Lamont S. Carter, United States of America v. Jerome R. Patterson, United States of America v. Jerome R. Patterson green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Messex v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation neutral | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Clement v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Webre v. Service Painting Company of Beaumont green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Hughes v. Chrysler Corp. green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Schwab v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York neutral | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Urban Land Co. v. City of Shreveport green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Metoyer v. Sewerage & Water Board green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Perez v. Meraux green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Bourgeois v. Bourgeois green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Marshall v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Co. green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Veillon v. Sylvester green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Walters v. Coen neutral | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.