424 So. 2d 305 - Jordan v. Sutton’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Harvey v. Richard · 151 So. 2d 557 - Shirey v. Campbell · State Ex Rel. Koehl v. Sewerage & Water Board · 406 So. 2d 657 - Southern Natural Gas Co. v. Poland · 401 So. 2d 389 - Jordan v. Sutton
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. That the Commissioner of Conservation perform or cause to be performed such tests on Cummings # 1 well as necessary to determine the productivity of said well within 60 days of the effective date of this order. 2. That the Commissioner of Conservation produce and allow inspection in his office at Shreveport, Louisiana, of pertinent electric logs, porosity logs, drilling histories and work resume’ reports of wells, drilled in Sections 1, 2, 10, 11 and 12, Township 16 North, Range 6 West, Bien-ville Parish, since February 22,1979, within 60 days of the effective date of this order and that plaintiff’s attorney be notified when said records are available for inspection. 3. That the Commissioner of Conservation answer the interrogatories attached to plaintiff’s petition, which are pertinent to the remaining issues before the court, categorically, in writing, and under oath in accordance with LSA-C.C.P. arts. 1491 et seq., within 60 days of the effective date of this order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jordan v. Sutton
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.