162 So. 3d 720 - Ast v. Ast’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1408 · 10 U.S.C. § 1413A
Relies on 358 So. 2d 919 - Sims v. Sims · Villaume v. Villaume · 809 So. 2d 916 - Tunstall v. Stierwald · Comdisco, Inc. v. SECRETARY OF LOUISIANA DEPT. OF REVENUE AND TAXATION · 645 So. 2d 661 - Krieg v. Krieg Bros. Terrazzo Co., Inc.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well settled that a final judgment may be amended only when the amended part takes nothing from or adds nothing to the original judgment. See Tunstall v. Stierwald, 01-1765 (La. 2/26/02), 809 So.2d 916 ; Sanderford v. Mason, 12-1881 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/1/13) , 135 So.3d 745 ; Thompson v. Falgout, 09-1026 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/10/10) , 33 So.3d 410 . Thus, the trial courts do not have the authority to substantively amend a judgment. See also Krieg v. Krieg Bros. Terrazzo Co., Inc., 93-1065 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/28/94) , 645 So.2d 661 , writ denied, 95-0152 (La. 3/30/95), 651 So.2d 837 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“On motion of the court or any party, a final judgment may be amended at any time to alter the phraseology of the judgment, but not its substance, or to correct errors of calculation.”
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.