Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 545 SO2D 632 - Thomas v. State

Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 2014

13 state decisions

901989199020002010decided

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 Dixie Drive It Yourself System New Orleans Co. v. American Beverage Co. · 346 So. 2d 193 - Haskins v. Clary · West v. Ray · Darville v. Texaco, Inc. · 444 So. 2d 618 - Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A]n exception of no right of action addresses itself to whether the party it is asserted against has any interest in enforcing judicially the right alleged against the mover. La.C.C.P. arts 681; 927. Meche v. Arceneaux, 460 So.2d 89 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984). The essential function of the exception is to provide a threshold device which terminates suits brought by one who has no interest in enforcing judicially the right asserted. Lambert v. Donald G. Lambert Construction Co., 370 So.2d 1254 (La.1979); Thomas v. State, 545 So.2d 632 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The want of interest raised by the exception relates primarily to whether the particular plaintiff falls as a matter of law within the general class in whose favor the law grants the cause of action sought to be asserted by the suit, with the factual evidence admissible being restricted as to whether this particular plaintiff does or does not fall within the general class having legal interest to sue upon the cause of action asserted. Wischer v. Madison Realty Company, 231 La. 704 , 92 So.2d 589 [1956].”
    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.