West v. Ray’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
137 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably 346 So. 2d 193 - Haskins v. Clary (1977), Dodge v. Bituminous Casualty Corporation (1949)
137 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 Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Saia · Gibbs v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. · Gerald v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana · Hardtner v. &198tna Casualty Surety Co. · Burmaster v. Texas Pacific-Missouri Pacific Terminal R. R. of New Orleans
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Technical objections and harsh rules of pleading which would dispose of litigants’ cases without a hearing on the merits have never been favored under Louisiana law. The modern federal rule and general tendency in all States is to be reasonable and even liberal in construing or interpreting pleadings with a view of a prompt disposition of the case on its merits, after full hearing by both parties, and where the petition fairly informs the defendant of the nature of plaintiff’s claim, •the modern court will not favor dismissal and the delays incident thereto because additional information has been included which may, granting that additional facts are true, be expanded into a defense against the cause of action set forth by the petition. * * * ” See also, Florida Molasses Co. v. Berger, 220 La. 31 , 55 So.2d 771 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“. "We conclude therefore that an affirmative defense, presented through exceptions or motions tried or triable only- on. the face of the petition, should not be sustained -unless the allegations of the petition exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than the premise upon which the- defense is based.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The Supreme Court, in the Gibbs Case has laid down a broad rule with respect to the sufficiency of petitions in damage suits where allegations are made which inferentially disclose ■contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. We understand that doctrine to mean that an exception of no cause of action can never be meritoriously- pleaded to a petition -sounding in damages for personal injury or death on the ground of contributory negligence of the plaintiff, unless its charges wre such as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis other than that the sole and proximate cause of the accident was due to the contributing fault of the plaintiff.”- (Emphasis supplied.) See also Cuneo v. Waddell, La.App., 189 So. 619 .”
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.