Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 682 SO2D 246 - Domingue v. ABC CORP.

Domingue v. ABC CORP.’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2017

18 state decisions

100199620002010decided

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 Fincher v. Insurance Corp. of America · 521 So. 2d 488 - Fincher v. Insurance Corp. of America · 441 So. 2d 417 - Building Engineering Services Co., Inc. v. State

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

  1. “When two or more suits are pending in a Louisiana court or courts on the same transaction or occurrence, between the same parties in the same capacities, the defendant may have all but the first suit dismissed by excepting thereto as provided in Article 925. When the defendant does not so except, the plaintiff may continue the prosecution of any of the suits, but the first final judgment rendered shall be conclusive of all.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “1. Two or more suits pending. 2. The suits involve the same transaction or occurrence, which can be determined on a casé-by-case basis. 3. The suits involve the same parties in the same capacities, and “[t]he ‘identity of parties’ prerequisite for res judicata does not mean that the parties must be the same physical or material parties, so long as they appear in the same quality or capacity.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The test for deciding whether an exception of lis pendens should be granted is to inquire whether a final judgment in the first suit would be res judicata in the subsequently filed suit.”
    2 later decisions 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.