206 So. 3d 1066 - Llopis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 951 So. 2d 138 - Alex v. Rayne Concrete Service · Mandina, Inc. v. O'Brien · 785 So. 2d 1022 - Carter v. Rhea · Delahoussaye v. Tulane University Hospital & Clinic · 735 So. 2d 670 - Clement v. American Motorists Ins. 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“). The suit was thereafter dismissed on a motion for involuntary dismissal and an exception of insufficiency of service of process. This Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court. See Llopis II . Following remand, the defendants filed Peremptory Exceptions of Res Judicata and No Cause of Action and a Declinatory Exception of Improper Service of Actions. A hearing was held on June 4, 2015 and by judgment dated June 26, 2015, the exceptions were denied. On July 10, 2015, the defendants filed a Motion for New Trial of the exceptions heard on June 4, 2015. The grounds asserted in the motion were that "the judgment rendered is clearly contrary to the law”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“) as follows. Dr. Llopis's first appeal concerned claims against the Board, its executive director, its president and its counsel arising under the Louisiana Open Meetings Law and claims for judicial review of certain decisions of the Board. Those claims were dismissed by the trial court on exceptions of no cause of action. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by this Court. See Llopis I . [ 2 ] Dr. Llopis then filed a first amended petition on January 25, 2012 against the same parties and adding other members of the Board. This suit sought”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“of the Twenty-First Judicial District Court. We further decline to convert the appeal to an application for supervisory writs as the motion for appeal was filed beyond the thirty-day period applicable to supervisory writs as set forth in Rule 4-3 of the Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal. Mr. Adams filed this appeal of the October 26, 2017 judgment on April 3, 2018. The”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Adams v. Adams
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.