Hopper v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 1972
4 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Oakes v. H. Weil Baking Co. · Massett v. Keff · Fontenelle v. Waguespack · Miller v. Meche
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.
““Article 2315 of the Louisiana LSA-Civil Code, which forms the basis of plaintiff’s complaint, provides that ‘every act whatever of man that causes damage to another, obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it’. This means that if Hopper is to prevail in this action, he must prove: “(a) That there was an act. “(b) That the act was done by Ross. “(c) That this act by Ross caused Hopper’s damage. “(d) That the damage was occasioned by Ross’s fault.” Hopper v. Ross, 123 F.Supp. 371 (W.D.La.1954).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Middleton v. Shaw
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.