757 So. 2d 716 - Darnell v. Alcorn’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
September 2015
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 617 So. 2d 880 - Stobart v. State Through DOTD · Mart v. Hill · 640 So. 2d 1305 - Theriot v. Lasseigne · 650 So. 2d 757 - Maranto v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. · Messer v. London
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.
“In the instant case, the initial inquiry is whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction over Alcorn. We find it is impossible to conclude that the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The record is uncontradicted that Alcorn was not personally served by the Civil Sheriff's office. Further, the trial court acknowledged that its only basis for jurisdiction was service on Edwin Lombard, the Clerk of Criminal District Court for Orleans Parish. However, that service was only effected after the hearing began on September 20, 1999. The record is devoid of any evidence that the Clerk of Court took any steps to comply with the provisions of LSA-R.S. 18:1408 B regarding notice to Alcorn by certified mail. Indeed, we opine that at that stage, it would have been a vain and useless act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he essence of due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard. 99-2405, p. 12, 757 So.2d at 723 . The court also noted that "[t]he Code of Civil Procedure requires that in order to obtain personal jurisdiction through service upon the agent, service upon him must be requested in sufficient time to permit the Clerk of Court to properly discharge his duty to mail the petition and citation to the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The principal establishment is that in which he makes his habitual residence; if he resides alternately in several places, and nearly as much one as in another, and has not declared his intention in the manner hereafter prescribed, any one of the said places where he resides may be considered as his principal establishment, at the option of the persons whose interests are hereby affected.”
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.