Cashback, Inc. v. Herring’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 2011
4 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 430 So. 2d 51 - Lamb v. Lamb · De Frances v. Gauthier · 292 So. 2d 575 - Hardy v. Kidder · 589 So. 2d 86 - Meshell v. Russell · Elchinger v. Lacroix
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“W. Craig Herring was employed by Cashback, Inc. and other entities owned and controlled by Harold Rosbottom, Jr. ("Rosbottom"). Herring's job was to develop sales of automatic teller machines and to purchase equipment to fill orders for the machines. After leaving Cashback's employ on July 1, 1993, Herring sued two corporations controlled by Rosbottom, Louisiana Gaming, Inc. and Nitro, Inc., seeking damages for unpaid wages, commissions, and other items. Attorney Michael Wainwright ("Wainwright") represented Herring in the suit. Cashback filed the present suit in November of 1993, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and seeking recovery pursuant to the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, LSA-R.S. 51:1401 et seq. It served Herring and Wainwright, although Wainwright was not enrolled as Herring's counsel of record in the suit. Cashback took Herring's deposition and subpoenaed certain documents on December 6, 1993. Herring has never filed an answer in the present suit. Settlement negotiations were ongoing between the parties from December 6, 1993 to March 1, 1994, and Cashback made a settlement offer which Herring never accepted. The offer was not formally withdrawn. At some time subsequent to the settlement offer, Herring dismissed Wainwright. Upon his withdrawal, Wainwright sent a letter dated March 24, 1994 to Cashback's counsel, William Lawrence ("Lawrence"), requesting assurance that since Wainwright was withdrawing as counsel, Lawrence would give Herring at least two wee”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“1) Although defendant had not filed an answer in the case, he had attended a deposition and produced requested documents connected with the present action. 2) Plaintiffs counsel was aware the defendant was seeking representation, and intended to defend the suit. 3) A settlement offer regarding the suit was still on the table. 4) Plaintiffs counsel agreed with defendant’s attorney to an extension of at least two weeks in order to allow the defendant to seek the services of another attorney, and thus was aware the defendant intended to seek counsel and defend the suit. 5) The defendant diligently sought representation in this matter by contacting Byron Richie, who, in turn, prior to confirmation of the default, contacted plaintiffs counsel to discuss the case. 6) The trial judge specifically found that neither Richie nor plaintiffs counsel was at fault for their beliefs as to whether an extension had been secured. Therefore, there was a misunderstanding as to whether an additional extension was granted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“), requesting assurance that since Wainwright was withdrawing as counsel, Lawrence would give Herring at least two weeks to retain other counsel before taking any adverse action in the two cases pending at that time. As per Wainwright's instructions, Lawrence signed and returned to Wainwright a copy of the letter confirming their agreement in reference to the request for an extension of time in which to answer the complaint. On April 7, 1994, precisely two weeks after the date of the request for an extension of time, the clerk of court received a”
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.