Galt v. Herndon’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 1984
2 federal appellate · 12 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 George v. Shreveport Cotton Oil Co. · Ehrlich v. Roby Motors Co. · Henderson v. Leona Rice Milling Co. · Bonzano v. Auze · Lowe v. Nelson
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In order to entitle one to a diminution of the price, he jnust not only show that the defect complained of existed at the time of the sale, but he must also show with reasonable certainty facts disclosing the amount of the reduction to which he is entitled. Lowe and Pattison v. Nelson, Bradley & Co., 7 La. Ann. 646 ; Bonzano v. Auze, 10 La. Ann. 188 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McLachlan v. Cuny““The action quanti minoris, or for the reduction' of the price, is subject to the same rules as the redhibitory action. Civ. Code, art. 2544. As the defendant may not recover in a redhibitory action because he ratified the sale after the defect or vice was known to him, he likewise may not recover in an action quanti minoris.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McLachlan v. Cuny
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.