Costanza v. Cannata’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 state decisions

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

1. ““It is thus determined that the precise holding in each of the three cases is upon some point differing from the issue here, that is, either the petition was by the owner himself, who was a party to the general contract, or was by a sub-contractor against the general contractor, but suit was properly brought within a year, and the surety then joined. In this case suit was brought by the sub-contractor against both the general contractor and the surety, but beyond a year after the acceptance of the contract. “This court has carefully examined the cases and law regulating building contracts and private works, L.R.S. 9 :- 4801, et seq. The court is of the opinion that while the holdings in these cases are correct they are not applicable here. An examination of the Svendson case and the Costanza case shows that each suit involves a suit by an owner against the contractor and surety, and the court in each instance properly held that the restriction of L.R.S. 9:4-814 does no.t apply to a suit by the owner against the surety. These cases are relied upon as authority that the suit by any claimant other than a materialman or a laborer is not required to be filed within one year after registration of the owner’s acceptance of the work. In the Cost-anza case, the Supreme Court said: 'The plea of prescription is likewise without merit. Section 14 of Act 298 of 1926, relied upon by the defendant, was clearly intended to limit the period within which the materialmen and laborers having cla”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moran & McGoey, Inc. v. Trinity Universal Insurance · 148 So. 2d 329 - Dinon Terrazzo & Tile Co. v. Tom Williams Construction Co.

2. ““The basis for the plaintiffs’ right to attorney fees is to be found in section 10 of Act No. 298 of 1926 [LSA-R.S. 9:4810], and it is limited to compensation for provoking the concursus proceeding. It is not extended to include the services of such attorney in connection with the prosecution of the claims of the owner against the contractor and his surety. * * *” 36 So.2d at 631 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Popich v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. · 231 So. 2d 604 - Popich v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland