Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 154 SO2D 490 - Wilkinson v. Husser

Wilkinson v. Husser’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
February 2006
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2006 · most notably 427 So. 2d 1312 - Watson v. Cook (1983), 341 So. 2d 1186 - Hemphill v. Strain (1977)

29 state decisions

15019631970198019902000decided

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 Kay v. Carter · Lee v. City of Baton Rouge · 146 So. 2d 441 - Touchet v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark, NJ · 150 So. 2d 120 - Haspel v. Treece · 141 So. 2d 920 - Jacobs v. Beck

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

  1. “"* * * We believe the provisions of Article 966 LSA-C.C.P. clearly indicative of the principle a motion for summary judgment is not intended to be in the nature of a trial of a factual issue and in keeping therewith we believe our learned brother below erred in treating appellees' motion as an opportunity to resolve and decide factual issues rather than a procedural device to determine whether or not a genuine issue of fact existed as evidenced by the pleadings, affidavits, depositions and admissions on file. We further believe our esteemed brother below erred in predicating his ruling on appellees' motion solely on the testimony of movant taken upon hearing of the motion for summary judgment in the same manner as though trial of the motion were trial of an issue of fact. We reiterate that Article 966 LSA-C.C.P. contains no authority for the examination of a litigant by direct and cross examination upon the trial of such motion. * * * "Granting only one witness testified on the trial of appellees' motion and conceding further said witness's appearance was apparently with the consent of counsel for all parties concerned, nevertheless, to sanction such procedure can have no practical effect save the fostering and encouragement of piecemeal trials and appeals."”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"* * * In disposing of a motion for summary judgment, the trial courts are urged to bear in mind the cardinal rules that movant bears the burden of clearly establishing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that all reasonable doubts must be resolved against the mover. LSA-C.C.P. Article 966; Haspel v. Treece, La.App., 150 So.2d 120 ; Jacobs v. Beck, La. App., 141 So.2d 920 ."”
    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.