Clevy v. O'MEARA’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Harmon v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company (1965), Carriere v. Pee Wee's Equipment Co. (1978)
54 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 Bates v. Blitz · Pearlstine v. Mattes · Perez v. Meraux · Succession of Yeates · Rhodes v. Miller
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"631. It shall be the duty of every of every person, employing laborers or other employees of any kind whatever when discharging any laborer or other employee, or when any such laborer or employee has resigned, within twenty-four hours after such discharge or resignation, to pay the laborer or employee the amount due under the terms of employment whether the employment is by the day, week or month, upon demand being made upon the employer by the discharged or resigned laborer or employee at the place where the employee or laborer is usually paid. 632. Any employer who fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of R.S. 23:631 shall be liable to the employee either for ninety day's wages at the employee's daily rate of pay, or else for full wages from the time the employee's demand for payment is made until the employer shall pay or tender the amount of unpaid wages due to such employee, whichever is the lesser amount of penalty wages. Reasonable attorney's fees shall be allowed the laborer or employee by the court which shall be taxed as costs to be paid by the employer, in the event a well-founded suit for any unpaid wages whatsoever be filed by the laborer or employee after twenty-four hours shall have elapsed from time of making the first demand following discharge or resignation. As amended Acts 1964, No. 422."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“"On several occasions this court has considered the mentioned statute and has held that the language thereof `is not so peremptory as to forbid an equitable defense against the penalty' (Deardorf v. Hunter, 160 La. 213 , 106 So. 831, 832 ); that the statute `should be strictly construed' (Hazel v. Robinson & Young, 187 La. 51 , 174 So. 105, 106 ); and that `it may yield to equitable defenses' (Bannon v. Techeland Oil Corporation, 205 La. 689 , 17 So.2d 921, 922 ). See also Elliott v. General Gas Corporation, 229 La. 128 , 85 So.2d 55 , wherein the doctrine of the cited cases is affirmed as the jurisprudence of this court."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“and in view of plaintiffs' accepting the above-mentioned checks and retaining the proceeds thereof, knowing at the time that the payments were for amounts less than those demanded, it might well be seriously contended that the doctrine of accord and satisfaction is applicable here and, hence, prevents a claiming of any additional wages with penalties and attorneys' fees.”
1 later decision 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.