663 So. 2d 480 - Gray v. McCormick’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 2018
1 federal appellate · 9 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 617 So. 2d 880 - Stobart v. State Through DOTD · Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc. · 439 So. 2d 1055 - John Bailey Contr. v. St., Dept. of Tr. & Dev. · 538 So. 2d 569 - Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. CANAL PLACE 2000 · Morris v. PEOPLE'S BANK & TRUST COMPANY OF NATCHITOCHES
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The impoverishment element [under the doctrine of unjust enrichment] is met only when the factual circumstances show that the impoverishment was not a result of the plaintiffs' own fault or negligence or was not undertaken at his [sic] own risk.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“As recognized in John Bailey Contractor, Inc. v. State Through DOTD , 439 So.2d 1055 (La.1983), a requirement for recovery under the theory of detrimental reliance is that the party seeking recovery must have had a justifiable reliance in the representation. In connection with that requirement, La.Civ.Code art. 1967 specifically states that "Reliance on a gratuitous promise made without required formalities is not reasonable." In Andrus v. Andrus , 93-856 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/2/94) ; 634 So.2d 1254 , we held that reliance based upon a donation of immovable property without adherence to the formal, written requirements provided by law was not justified. See also Kibbe v. Lege , 604 So.2d 1366 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writs denied , 606 So.2d 540 (La.1992).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A party may be obligated by a promise when he knew or should have known that the promise would induce the other party to rely on it to his detriment and the other party was reasonable in so relying. Recovery may be limited to the expenses incurred or the damages suffered as a result of the promisee's reliance on the promise. Reliance on a gratuitous promise made without required formalities is not reasonable. [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Crosby v. Stinson
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.