Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 430 SO2D 1376 - State v. Laconco, Inc.

State v. Laconco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2020

2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

5019831990200020102020decided

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 Akers v. United States · Israel v. Futuronics Corp. · Signal Oil & Gas Company v. Barge · State v. Washington · 359 So. 2d 1275 - Killebrew v. Abbott Laboratories

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

  1. “The law in Louisiana is that once the project is substantially complete, then the contractor is entitled to the contract price. If corrective work is required, the owner is entitled to deduct the cost of this work from the retainage and withhold it until the work is satisfactory. However, the owner is not entitled to withhold the entire retainage (in this case over 10% of the contract price) until every minor deficiency is taken care of. He can retain only as much as reflects the cost of uncompleted work. Boydstun v. Johnson, 401 So.2d 629 (La. App. 3rd Cir.1981), writ denied 404 So.2d 1262 (La.1981). Logically, the function of the punch list is to apprise the contractor of work in need of correction. As such, it should be forthcoming at or near the time of substantial completion in order that the project may be closed out as soon as possible.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Article 2164 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes a claim for damages for frivolous appeal, but its provisions are penal in nature and must be strictly con strued. Appeals are favored,' and the imposition of penalties for frivolous appeal will not be granted unless they are clearly due. Damages for a frivolous appeal will not lie unless it manifestly appears that the appeal was taken solely for delay or that appealing counsel does not seriously believe in the position he advocates, even though the appeal lacks serious merit.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “After amicable demand for payment has been made on the principal and surety and thirty days have elapsed without payment being made, any claimant recovering the full amount of his recorded or sworn claim, whether by concursus proceeding or separate suit, shall be allowed ten percent attorney’s fees which shall be taxed in the judgment on the amount recovered.”
    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.