203 So. 3d 501 - Henry v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
Relationships
Relies on 593 So. 2d 892 - Louisiana Pav. v. St. Charles Par. Sch. · 672 So. 2d 309 - Employers Nat. Ins. v. Workers'comp. Second Injury Board · 118 So. 3d 398 - Bernard, Cassisa, Elliott & Davis v. Estate of LaPorte · 115 So. 3d 508 - Rush v. Rush · 122 So. 3d 579 - Starkey v. Starkey
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The . plain language of La. R.S. 13:4209(B)(2) provides, “[i]f a prior judge has stated an affirmative intent to sign a judgment and failed to do so for whatever reason, the successor judge is empowered to sign the judgment.” [emphasis added]. In the instant case, Judge Amacker, through her oral reasons, clearly manifested an affirmative intent to sign a judgment in favor of relator. Therefore, Judge Devereux, in her capacity as successor judge, is empowered to sign the judgment. Any other result would be contrary to the statutory intent as well as the interests of judicial economy. Accordingly, the writ is granted. The judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside. The district court’s February 12, 2016 judgment is reinstated, and the case is remanded to the court of appeal for consideration of the appeal on the merits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Henry v. Sullivan
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.