Fudickar v. Inabnet’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently May 1990 · most notably Gulf States Finance Corp. v. Airline Auto Sales Inc. (1965), 376 So. 2d 1016 - Fly v. Hand (1979)
38 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 Pierce v. United States · Dilzell Engineering & Construction Co. v. Lehmann · Trcka v. Bragmans Bluff Lumber Co. · 3 La. Ann. 177 - Brown v. Union Insurance · 13 La. App. 495 - Derbes v. Till
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e think plaintiff is entitled to a remedy under the equity powers conferred upon the courts of the state by article 21 of the Civil Code, particularly in view of article 3183 of the Civil Code, which declares, `The property of the debtor is the common pledge of his creditors.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"It appears, therefore, that the clear purpose of the excluded testimony was to show, not want of consideration for the issuance of the note, but that at the time the note was executed an independent agreement was entered into between the parties providing for the payment of the note in a manner different from that stipulated in the note itself. "The general rule covering the controverted question presented here is set forth in an exhaustive annotation appearing in 71 A.L.R. 550 , wherein many decisions of the courts of the United States and of a number of the states are cited in its support, as follows, viz.: `It is the general rule, supported by many decisions, that parol or extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show a prior or contemporaneous agreement that a note or bill of exchange in the ordinary form, providing for the payment of a certain sum of money, may, or should be, paid or discharged in some other mode or manner, or in some other medium, than that specified on the face of the instrument.'"”
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.