Wexler v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably 533 So. 2d 54 - Streeter v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc. (1988), Thomas v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1989)
24 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 Friedman Iron & Supply Co. v. J. B. Beaird Co. · 340 So. 2d 588 - Watson v. Morrison · 276 So. 2d 297 - Budget Plan of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Talbert · 214 So. 2d 552 - Sterkx v. Gravity Drainage Dist. No. 1 of Rapides Par. · 136 So. 2d 448 - Little v. Hughes
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In their petition plaintiffs alleged items of general damages, estimating the amount thereof, and at trial they presented evidence to support the demand for relief. The judgment granted the relief in an amount greater than the estimated amount listed in the original petition. Pertinent to the decision of this issue is C.C.P. art. 862, which provides: `Except as provided in Article 1703, a final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings and the latter contain no prayer for general and equitable relief.' At the threshold we observe that there is no requirement in the Code for specific allegations of items of general damage. Logically, if there is no need to itemize or estimate general damages, there should be no penalty or limitation on a party who does so. The exception in the introductory clause of C.C.P. art. 862 is also significant. Inasmuch as the excepted article (C.C.P. art. 1703) expressly provides that a judgment by default cannot exceed in amount that demanded in the petition, the general article (C.C.P. art. 862) should logically be interpreted to mean that other types of final judgments can exceed in amount that demanded in the petition. Of course, this is particularly persuasive since, as noted above, there is no requirement for itemization or estimation of general damages in the first place. Furthermore, the source of C.C.P. art. 862 is Federal Rule”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Evidence of payment of some damages by the alleged tortfeasor is completely irrelevant to any issue in this case and should have been excluded. As is the case with any irrelevant evidence, the problem is that this evidence appears to the jury to prove something that it does not actually prove, namely, that defendants were liable for the accident. However, the issue of liability, although contested in the trial court, is now conceded on appeal. Defendants argue, nevertheless, that evidence of this apparent admission of liability prior to trial by a party contesting liability at trial had a prejudicial effect on the jury which set quantum. While not passing specifically on this doubtful argument, we note that any prejudicial effect on the jury was cured by the trial judge's admonition in admitting the evidence that the payment was not to be considered as an admission of liability." Wexler v. Martin, 367 So.2d 111 , at page 115 (La.App. 4th Cir.1979).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Under C.C.P. art. 1154 an issue which has not been raised by the pleadings, but has been tried by the express or implied consent of the parties, must be treated in all respects as if the issue had been raised by the pleadings. Accordingly, the pleadings may subsequently be amended, even after judgment, to reflect the enlargement by evidence introduced without objection, but “failure to so amend does not affect the result of the trial of the issue”. The purpose of C.C.P. art. 1154 is to recognize the principle that pleadings may be enlarged by evidence introduced without objection. Once such evidence has been introduced, then the pleadings may be formally amended as a housekeeping measure, but formal amendment is not necessary to allow a judgment based on the evidence which enlarged the pleadings. [Emphasis added.]”
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.