Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 485 SO2D 613 - Mitchell v. Crane

Mitchell v. Crane’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
June 2012
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2012

8 state decisions

501986199020002010decided

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 434 So. 2d 1067 - Kem Search, Inc. v. Sheffield · Darville v. Texaco, Inc. · 444 So. 2d 618 - Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc. · 320 So. 2d 533 - Johnson v. Jones-Journet · 432 So. 2d 827 - Mott v. River Parish Maintenance, Inc.

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

  1. “An exception of no cause of action raises the question of whether the law affords a remedy to anyone based only upon the well-pleaded allegations of fact in the petition under any theory of the case. Mott v. River Parish Maintenance, Inc., 432 So.2d 827 (La.1983). The purpose is to determine the sufficiency in law of the petition. The exception is triable on the face of the papers. For the purpose of determining the issues raised by the exception, well pleaded facts in the petition and any annexed documents must be accepted as true. La.C.C.P. Art. 927; Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., 444 So.2d 618 (La.1984). An exception of no cause of action must be overruled unless the allegations of the petition exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than the premise upon which the defense is based. The plaintiff must have no cause of action under any evidence admissible under the pleadings. Darville v. Texaco, Inc., 447 So.2d 473 (La.1984).”
    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.