Bates v. Blitz’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently September 1987 · most notably Melancon v. Texas Company (1956), Fried v. Bradley (1951)
74 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 Toca v. Rojas · Perez v. Meraux · Rubenstein v. Files · Stanley v. Jones · Pruyn v. Young
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Art. 2695. The lessor guarantees the lessee against all the vices and defects of the thing, which may prevent its being used even in case it should appear he knew nothing of the existence of such vices and defects, at the time the lease was made, and even if they have arisen since, provided they do not arise from the fault of the lessee; and if any loss should result to the lessee from the vices and defects, the lessor should be bound to indemnify him for the same."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * One of the fundamental rules of evidence is that a failure to call an available witness possessing peculiar knowledge concerning facts essential to a party’s case or to produce evidence of a more explicit, direct, and satisfactory character than that relied on by him, raises the inference or presumption that the testimony of the witness not called would not sustain his contention and that if more satisfactory evidence had been given it would prove detrimental in his cause. This is particularly true where no effort has been made to substantiate the statement of a witness whose credibility, although put in doubt, is susceptible of corroboration. King v. Atkins, 33 La.Ann. 1057 ; Crescent City Ice Co. v. Ermann, 36 La.Ann. 841 ; Pruyn v. Young, 51 La.Ann. 320 , 25 So. 125 ; Nelson v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co., 141 La. 475 , 75 So. 212 ; Rubenstein v. Files, 146 La. 727 , 84 So. 33 ; Toca v. Rojas, 152 La. 317, 318 , 93 So. 108 ; Succession of Rageur, 155 La. 97 , 98 So. 853 ; Perez v. Meraux, 201 La. 498 , 9 So.2d 662 ; Stanley v. Jones, 201 La. 549 , 9 So.2d 678 ; II Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed.) 162, Sections 285 and 286; 22 C.J. 115, § 56; 31 C.J.S., Evidence, § 156, subsec. c. page 856; 20 Am.Jur. 192, Section 187; and Ann.Cas.1914A, 915.” Bates v. Blitz, 205 La. 536 , 17 So.2d 816, 820 .”
2 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.