Gilman v. Babin’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently May 1985
13 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 Massey v. Consumer's Ice Co. of Shreveport, Inc. · Clark v. Richardson · 168 So. 2d 873 - Vehrs v. Jefferson Insurance Company · 136 So. 2d 423 - Frederick v. Popich Marine Construction, Inc. · 111 So. 2d 146 - Miller v. Rollins
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Article 1702 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, relative to default judgment, provides in part that ‘judgment of default must be confirmed by proof of the demand sufficient to establish a pri-ma facie case.’ The settled jurisprudence of this state is to the effect that where it is expressed in the default judgment that it was confirmed and made final on due proof of the plaintiff’s demands, it will be presumed that legal and sufficient evidence was produced before the Judge and that the judgment is correct. Vehrs v. Jefferson Insurance Company, La.App., 168 So.2d 873 ; Lindsley-Feiber Motor Company v. Brumfield, La.App., 111 So.2d 555 ; Harris v. Womack, La.App., 83 So.2d 541 ; Massey v. Consumer’s Ice Company of Shreveport, Inc., 223 La. 731 , 66 So.2d 789 . Where a record on appeal from a default judgment does not contain the transcript of testimony of any witnesses at the hearing on confirmation of default and the record does not contain statement of facts by the Trial Court, the default judgment is presumed to have been based upon sufficient evidence and to be correct and an appellate tribunal has no authority to inquire beyond the Trial Court’s recital that due proof was made. Vehrs v. Jefferson Insurance Company, supra; Clark v. Richardson, La.App., 157 So.2d 325 ; Miller v. Rollins, La.App., 111 So.2d 146 ; Lindsley-Feiber Motor Company v. Brumfield, supra; Harris v. Womack, supra; Frederick v. Popich Marine Construction, Inc., La.App., 136 So.2d 423 ; Bush v. ”
6 later decisions 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.