Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 SO2D 779 - King v. Burris

King v. Burris’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently August 2017

3 state decisions

101952196019701980199020002010decided

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 Succession of Robinson · City of New Orleans v. Le Bourgeois · Tremont Lumber Co. v. May · Southport Mill, Ltd. v. Friedrichs · Goldsmith v. Virgin

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

  1. “"While it is true the allowance or refusal of amended petitions is largely within the sound discretion of the Court, and its action will not be reversed unless manifest error and injustice will result, yet as stated many times in our jurisprudence, amendments are favored. In Thomas v. Leonard Truck Lines, Inc., La.App., 7 So.2d 753, 756 , `The tendency now is to pursue a liberal rather than a strict attitude toward ("amendments"). To do so prevents a multiplicity of suits abhorred by courts.' * * * * * * "To hold in the present case that plaintiff's suit could be dismissed since the amended petition was filed five days after the time allowed by the trial judge would result in injustice. We do not mean to pronounce that a plaintiff has an unlimited time within which to comply with the direction of a court in allowing time to file amendments, but that in this particular case the amendment was timely and will promote justice and neither the nature of the demand nor the substance of the issue will be changed."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “While it is true the allowance or refusal of amended petitions is largely within the sound discretion of the Court, and its action will not be reversed unless manifest error and injustice will result, yet as stated many times in our jurisprudence, amendments are favored. In Thomas v. Leonard Truck Lines, Inc., La.App., 7 So.2d 753, 756 , `The tendency now is to pursue a liberal rather than a strict attitude toward (”
    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.