Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 SO2D 389 - Lillis v. Anderson

Lillis v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Airco Refrigeration Service, Inc. v. Fink (1961), 332 So. 2d 433 - Meador v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc. (1976)

1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

10019451950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Merrill v. Harang · Reimann Const. Co. v. Upton · Peterson v. Peralta · 6 La. Ann. 202 - Cairy v. Randolph · Reicke v. Bland

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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"But under the uniform jurisprudence of this court, a suit may be maintained upon a building contract, although the work be defective or unfinished, and the remedy of the defendant in such a case is for a reduction of the price agreed upon to the extent of the damages sustained by reason of the defective performance."”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Article 1934. 3. Although the general rule is, that damages are the amount of the loss the creditor has sustained, or of the gain of which he has been deprived, yet there are cases in which damages may be assessed without calculating altogether on the pecuniary loss, or the privation of pecuniary gain to the party. Where the contract has for its object the gratification of some intellectual enjoyment, whether in religion, morality or taste, or some convenience or other legal gratification, although these are not appreciated in money by the parties, yet damages are due for their breach; a contract for a religious or charitable foundation, a promise of marriage, or an engagement for a work of some of the fine arts, are objects and examples of this rule. "In the assessment of damages under this rule, as well as in cases of offenses, quasi offenses, and quasi contracts, much discretion must be left to the judge or jury, while in other cases they have none, but are bound to give such damages under the above rules as will fully indemnify the creditor, whenever the contract has been broken by the fault, negligence, fraud or bad faith of the debtor."”
    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.