Bartholomew v. Impastato’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 2004 · most notably 37 Ill. 2d 494 - Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroad (1967), Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. v. Saint Denis Securities Co. (1954)
1 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on La Casse v. New Orleans, T. & M. R. · Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America · Soniat v. White · Trumbaturi v. Katz & Besthoff, Ltd. · Schmidt v. Conservative Homestead Ass'n.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Counsel's appreciation of the procedure applicable to civil trials in Louisiana is correct. An exception of no cause of action addresses itself to the sufficiency in law of the petition and exhibits attached thereto. It is triable on the face of the papers. See Trumbaturi v. Katz & Besthoff, 180 La. 915 , 158 So. 16 , Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co., 181 La. 630 , 160 So. 121 and other cases, too numerous to mention. In determining whether the exception is well founded, the court does not consider the evidence submitted in support of the petition, except in cases where the exception is filed after evidence has been taken and the allegations of the petition have been enlarged by such evidence which has been received without objection. See Bell v. Globe Lumber Co. Ltd., 107 La. 725 , 31 So. 994 ; McQueen v. Tremont Lumber Co., La.App., 151 So. 683 and Anderson v. Harvey & Jones, La.App., 154 So. 495 ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Motions for judgment, directed verdicts and demurrers to evidence are procedural pleadings of the common law which are unknown in our system. See Williams v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., supra. And, they may not be invoked in Louisiana by disguising them with the label of exception of no right or cause of action. If the defendant doubts the sufficiency of the evidence submitted by plaintiff to sustain his demand and does not see fit to contradict the evidence which has been submitted, he unquestionably has the right to have the court determine the sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence by resting his case. In such instances, a judgment should be rendered on the merits in favor of one side or the other — but not on an exception of no cause of action — for that exception challenges the legality of the cause alleged and does not pertain to the trial on the merits.””
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.