304 So. 2d 425 - Richardson v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 2013
10 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 Federal Insurance Co. v. Insurance Co. of No. Amer. · Schoppel v. Daly · Waller & Edmonds v. Cockfield · 249 So. 2d 607 - Clement v. Redi-Bilt Corporation · Anglade v. Hemenway Furniture Co.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n action for the recovery of damages for an offense or quasi offense may be brought in the parish where the wrongful conduct occurred, or in the parish where the damages were sustained.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The following rules determine the proper venue in cases where two or more articles in this Chapter may conflict: "(1) Article 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, or 83 governs the venue exclusively, if this article conflicts with any of Articles 42 and 71 through 77; "(2) If there is a conflict between two or more Articles 78 through 83, the plaintiff may bring the action in any venue provided by any applicable article; and "(3) If Article 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, or 83 is not applicable, and there is a conflict between two or more of Articles 42 and 71 through 77, the plaintiff may bring the action in any venue provided by any applicable article."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sims v. Sims“The instant case is readily distinguishable from Clement v. Redi-Bilt Corporation , above, wherein plaintiff sued upon the contract rather than in tort. In Clement , the claim was based on alleged `unsatisfactory workmanship' in the performance of the contract; there was no allegation that the reputed unsatisfactory workmanship was the result of defendant's negligence. * * * * * *”
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.