128 So. 2d 62 - Jack v. Henry’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 1992
15 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 Michel v. Efferson · Merrill v. Harang · A. M. Blodgett Const. Co. v. Cheney Lumber Co. · Lillis v. Anderson · Reimann Const. Co. v. Upton
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"If an undertaker fails to do the work he has contracted to do, or if he does not execute it in the manner and at the time he has agreed to do it, he shall be liable in damages for the losses that may ensue from his non-compliance with his contract."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Palmer v. Asaff · Hoover v. Beatty““We believe, as did the learned trial judge, that the case at hand is controlled by that line of jurisprudence established by Costanza v. Cannata, 214 La. 29 , 36 So.2d 627 , and Michel v. Efferson, 223 La. 136 , 65 So.2d 115 , which authorities clearly hold that to operate as a waiver of the right to claim damages for defective construction the owner must have intended such result and the burden is placed upon the contractor to show the owner had knowledge of the full extent of the damages and intentionally waived his rights. The Michel and Costanza cases, supra, are also authority for the principle that where an acceptance is granted with the understanding that items complained of will be corrected and completed, such acceptance does not constitute a waiver. In the latter case the court felt the action of the contractor in attempting to remedy some of the defects after acceptance was filed, indicated not only that the acceptance was not intended by the owner as a waiver but that such was also known and understood by the contractor.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Palmer v. Asaff“[W]e believe that a contract for the construction of a home . . . has as its object the convenience of the owner within the meaning and intendment of the phrase `or some convenience' as used in Paragraph 3, Article 1934, LSA-R.C.C. entitling the owner of a residence to damages for inconvenience resulting from a contractor's breach of the obligation . . . .”
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.