280 So. 2d 262 - Bailey v. Kruithoff’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1997
1 federal appellate · 6 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 McDuffie v. Walker · American Creosote Company v. Springer · Richardson v. Item Co. · Prevot v. Courtney · Scott v. Brennan
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Immovability by nature has been characterized as a creation of the law based on practical consideration and on inherent characteristics of the things concerned. The question of whether a building or other construction is an immovable under pre-revised Article 464 is left for judicial determination according to prevailing notions in society. Two criteria that are often mentioned in decisions of the Courts are (1) some degree of integration or attachment to the soil, and (2)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Lands and buildings or other constructions, whether they have their foundations in the soil or not, are immovable by their nature.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“... railroad trackage, American Cresote Company v. Springer, 257 La. 116 , 241 So.2d 510 (1970); a tractor shed and poultry house, Prevot v. Courtney, 241 La. 313 , 129 So.2d 1 (1961); a canal, Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. Board of State Affairs et al., 154 La. 988 , 98 So. 552 (1923); a brooder for beagle puppies 25 × 5 × 4 feet and a chicken brooder 10 × 5 × 4 feet, each set on 4 × 4 inch posts in the ground, Lafleur v. Foret, 213 So.2d 141 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1968); an outdoor advertising sign, Industrial Outdoor Displays v. Reuter, 162 So.2d 160 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1964); a brick pit, Folse v. Loreauville Sugar Factory, 156 So. 667 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1934); and a gas tank, Monroe Automobile Co. v. Cole, 6 La.App. 337 (2d Cir. 1927).”
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.