Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 337 So. 2d 627 - Conques v. Hardy

337 So. 2d 627 - Conques v. Hardy’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
2
states following
March 1989
most recently cited

15 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Pierson v. Ray · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate J Bosch Second National Bank of New Haven · 316 So. 2d 111 - Webster v. Rushing · Berry v. Bass · 320 So. 2d 267 - Guidry v. Carmouche

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

  1. ““ * * * Plaintiff’s principal argument against immunity for Justice of the Peace Hardy is that he was acting beyond his jurisdiction when he issued the warrant of arrest for young Conques. In plaintiff’s earlier suit against the sheriff of St. Martin Parish (Conques v. Fuselier, supra), we said: ‘Justice of the Peace Hardy improperly issued a warrant for young Conques’ arrest without jurisdiction over the minor. . . . ’ Our authority for this conclusion is LSA-R.S. 13:1569 and 13:1570, which exclude justices of the peace from the enumeration of courts and judges having jurisdiction over juveniles. We noted, however, that Article 931 of our Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes the issuance of warrants by justices of the peace. The question is, was defendant’s act of issuing a warrant for Edward Conques’ arrest an act so far beyond his general warrant authority as to make him liable for resultant damages? In our opinion, it was not. “We believe the definitive case on an inferior magistrate’s liability for damages resulting from acts exceeding his jurisdiction is Berry v. Bass, 157 La. 81 , 102 So. 76 (1924). In that case, the sheriff and mayor were sued for false arrest and false imprisonment. The court disposed of the false arrest charge by holding that there simply was no arrest. The court then held that the magistrate-mayor had exceeded his jurisdiction by imprisoning plaintiff instead of giving him the right to pay a fine. The court explained: ‘But in one sense the mayor e”
    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.