Schwartz Supply Co. v. Breen’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2002
7 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 12 La. App. 491 - Hortman-Salmen Co. v. Naquin · Parks v. Hall · Edwards Bros. v. Berner · 19 La. App. 875 - George E. Breece Lumber Co. v. Morris · 18 La. App. 105 - Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * We think, therefore, that when plaintiff here used Fishman as a witness against Breen, it did so not in reality under the act, but, in truth, as a witness in its own behalf, and that, therefore, it was proper to permit counsel for Breen to cross-examine this witness.” (Schwartz Supply Company v. Breen, 184 So. at 232 )”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * Under such circumstances it was not proper to permit one defendant called by plaintiff under the-statute to give testimony adversely affecting the other defendant; or,, rather, it was not proper to consider-such testimony as against the other defendant.””
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.