Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 152 LA 419 - Liles v. Barnhart

Liles v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis

1922

Citation profile

73
cited by 73 later decisions
2
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably Importsales, Inc. v. Lindeman (1957), Kramer v. Freeman (1941)

2 federal appellate · 63 state decisions

1401922193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Liles v. Pitts · Woodcock v. Baldwin · Sibley v. Pierson · Sims v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co. · Elder v. Ellerbe

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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Finally it was suggested in the oral argument (and there seemed to be much force in the suggestion) that there ought to be a difference between the application of the prescription relied on as between the claim for damages resulting from the trespass and the claim for the value of the property belonging to the plaintiff which the defendants have appropriated to their own use. We feel very much inclined to the view that there ought to be such a difference, but it does not seem to be recognized by the law or the jurisprudence of this state.” See also J. H. Bel Lumber Co. vs. Stout, 134 La. 999 , 64 So. 881 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The present phase of plaintiffs’ suit is nothing more than one for damages, for a quasi offense, the amount of which is the value of the oil and gas. In no sense is it a suit for money had and received. Therefore the authorities cited by plaintiffs, based upon that hypothesis, are not pertinent.””
    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.