Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 246 So. 3d 833 - Leone v. Ware

246 So. 3d 833 - Leone v. Ware’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation · 866 So. 2d 244 - Reese v. STATE DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY · 986 So. 2d 47 - Howard v. Administrators of Tulane Ed. Fund · Washington Mutual Bank v. Monticello · Washington Mut. Bank v. Monticello

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

  1. “A peremptory exception of no right of action poses a question of law and is reviewed de novo. Washington Mut. Bank v. Monticello , 07-1018 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/6/08) , 976 So.2d 251 , writ denied , 08-530 (La. 4/25/08), 978 So.2d 369 . .... In Louisiana, an exception of no right of action is raised through a peremptory exception pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 927. The exception's function "is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit." Reese v. State Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corrs. , 03-1615, pp. 2-3 (La. 2/20/04), 866 So.2d 244 , 246. The supreme court has noted that when reviewing a trial court's ruling on an exception of no right of action, an appellate court "should focus on whether the particular plaintiff has a right to bring the suit and is a member of the class of persons that has a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation, assuming the petition states a valid cause of action for some person." Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp. , 10-2267, 10-2272, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289, p. 7 (La. 10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246 , 256. The burden of proof rests with the movant. Montgomery v. Lester , 16-192 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/28/16) , 201 So.3d 966 , writ denied , 16-1944 (La. 12/16/16), 212 So.3d 1173 . Evidence introduced in support of a peremptory exception is governed by La.Code Civ.P. art. 931, which provides, in pertinent part: "On the trial of the peremptory exception plead”
    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.