Bowen v. Doyal’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
102 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently January 2010 · most notably 633 So. 2d 1210 - Kelty v. Brumfield (1994), Delta Bank & Trust Co. v. Lassiter (1980)
102 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 Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Estep v. United States · Dickinson v. United States · Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 11 · Kent v. Dulles
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Article 1, Section 6, of the Louisiana Constitution provides that the courts must be open to every person for adequate remedy by due process of law. We have held that although administrative bodies have power to determine as original propositions the matters assigned to them under statute, a party whose legal rights have been adversely affected by that determination may test its legal correctness in the courts. See Meyer v. Board of Trustees, etc., 199 La. 633 , 6 So.2d 713 , and cases there cited; State ex rel. Rathe v. Jefferson Parish School Board, 206 La. 317 , 19 So.2d 153 ; Parker v. Board of Barber Examiners, 84 So.2d 80 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1955); Pettit v. Penn, 180 So.2d 66 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1965), writs refused 248 La. 696 , 181 So.2d 397 . Thus, with the presumption that all administrative determinations are reviewable by the court and a conviction that judicial review may even be necessary in the face of legislative attempt to deny it, in the absence of constitutional restrictions we must not only favor but preserve the right of review. The mandate of Article 1, Section 6, is of overriding concern as we consider the matter before us, which on its face presents a legal dispute between an individual and an administrative body." 253 So.2d at 203-04 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he exercise of the right of a party to have a judgment of a trial court revised, modified, set aside, or reversed by an appellate court.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Section 35 of Article 7 of the Constitution, which sets forth the original jurisdiction of the district courts, states in pertinent part that they `... shall have original jurisdiction in all civil matters regardless of the amount in dispute...'. The instant matter is a civil proceeding, and the district court is the `court of competent jurisdiction'. C. C.P. Art. 5251(4). In fact, the district court is the court of exclusive original jurisdiction under Constitution Article 7, Section 35.”
3 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.