King v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1982
3 state decisions
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 Kardis v. Barrere · 12 La. App. 216 - Barnidge v. Cappel Motor Co. · Cockrell v. Capital City Auto Co. · Violette v. Capital City Auto Co.
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.
“"Art. 2541. Reduction of price for vices warranting redhibition Art. 2541. Whether the defect in the thing sold be such as to render it useless and altogether unsuited to its purpose, or whether it be such as merely to diminish the value, the buyer may limit his demand to the reduction of the price."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Art. 2529. A declaration made in good faith by the seller, that the thing sold has some quality which it is found not to have, gives rise to a redhibition, if this quality was the principal motive for making the purchase.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fusilier v. Ardoin
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.