Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 178 SO2D 291 - Gumina v. Dupas

Gumina v. Dupas’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
June 1994
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 1994

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

1101965197019801990decided

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 Norton Assignee v. Switzer · Helms v. Holmes · Accardo v. Dimiceli · Southland Inv. Co. v. Motor Sales Co. · Gumina v. Dupas

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

  1. ““A final judgment shall be annulled if it is rendered: “(1) Against an incompetent person not represented as required by law; “(2) Against a defendant who has not been served with process as required by law and who has not entered a general appearance, or against whom a valid judgment by default has not been taken; or “(3) By a court which does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. “Except as otherwise provided in Article 2003, an action to annul a judgment on these grounds may be brought at any time.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““A final judgment obtained by fraud or ill practices may be annulled. “An action to annul a judgment on these grounds must be brought within one year of the discovery by the plaintiff in the nullity action of the fraud or ill practices.””
    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.