718 So. 2d 582 - Anderson v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 302 So. 2d 5 - Imperial v. Hardy · 490 So. 2d 303 - Martinez v. Reed · 710 So. 2d 354 - Gazebo, Inc. v. City of New Orleans · 382 So. 2d 201 - Parker v. Parker · 402 So. 2d 795 - Mayrson v. Chaplin
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f it is rendered: (1) Against an incompetent person not represented as required by law. (2) Against a defendant who has not been served with process as required by law and who has not waived objection to jurisdiction, or against whom a valid judgment by default has not been taken. (3)By a court which does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A. Notice required for the exercise of jurisdiction when a person is outside this state may be given in a manner prescribed by the law of this state for service of process or by the law of the state in which the service is made. Notice shall be given in a manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice but may be by publication if other means are not effective. B. Proof of service may be made in the manner prescribed by the law of this state or by the law of the state in which the service is made. C. Notice is not required for the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to a person who submits to the jurisdiction of the court.”
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.