Kramer v. Freeman’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably Federal Insurance Co. v. Insurance Co. of No. Amer. (1972), Importsales, Inc. v. Lindeman (1957)
10 federal appellate · 50 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 Tyler v. Walt · Liles v. Barnhart · Ducros v. St. Bernard Cypress Co. · State ex rel. Macheca v. Dunn · Martin v. Texas 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is well settled jurisprudence of [Louisiana] that the character which a plaintiff gives his pleadings and the form of his action govern the prescription applicable”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““In delving for the correct solution of this problem, it is necessary, at the outset, to determine whether the acts committed by the defendants, which form the basis of the cause of action, afforded to the plaintiff two remedies — one in tort and one in quasi contract. There can be no doubt that the acts complained of were offenses within the meaning of Article 2315 of the Civil Code and that the plaintiff had a cause of action to recover all of the damages he suffered as a result of these torts. In addition to this, the wrongful taking and detention of plaintiff’s property by the defendants imposed upon them an implied contractual obligation to return it and the plaintiff had the right to proceed in an action ex contractu to compel them to do so. See Articles 2292, 2293, 2294 and 2301 of the Civil Cole; Morgan’s Louisiana, etc., Ry. Co. v. Stewart, 119 La. 392 , 44 So. 138 ; Ducros v. St. Bernard Cypress Co., 164 La. 787 , 114 So. 654 ; Roney v. Peyton, La.App., 159 So. 469 ; Smith v. Phillips, 175 La. 198 , 143 So. 47 ; Bryceland Lumber Co. v. Kerlin, 143 La. 342 , 78 So. 482 ; Bell Lumber Co. v. Stout, 134 La. 987 , 64 So. 881 ; Martin v. Texas Co., 150 La. 556 , 90 So. 922 ; Liles v. Barnhart, 152 La. 419 , 93 So. 490 ; Liles v. Producers Oil Co., 155 La. 385, 386 , 99 So. 339 , and Carter-Allen Jewelry Co. v. Overstreet, 165 La. 887 , 116 So. 222 . Article 2301 of the Civil Code provides : “ ‘He who receives what is not due to him, whether he receives it through error or”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is well settled that a husband will not be permitted to sue his wife during marriage where the object of his action is the recovery from his wife of his interest in property belonging to the community. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Reich v. Reich
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.