869 So. 2d 114 - Ramey v. DeCaire’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
110 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Wright v. Louisiana Power & Light (2007), 950 So. 2d 641 - Scheffler v. Adams and Reese, LLP (2007)
110 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 616 So. 2d 1234 - Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc. · 640 So. 2d 237 - City of New Orleans v. Board of Com'rs · Fink v. Bryant · 637 So. 2d 127 - Montalvo v. Sondes · 785 So. 2d 803 - Jackson v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Corrs.
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A cause of action, when used in the context of the peremptory exception, is defined as the operative facts that give rise to the plaintiff's right to judicially assert the action against the defendant. Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234, 1238 (La.1993). The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition, which is done by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the pleading. Id. at 1235 . No evidence may be introduced to support or controvert an exception of no cause of action. La. C.C.P. art. 931. Consequently, the court reviews the petition and accepts well-pleaded allegations of fact as true. Jackson v. State ex rel. Dept. of Corrections, 00-2882, p. 3 (La.5/15/01), 785 So.2d 803, 806 ; Everything on Wheels Subaru, 616 So.2d at 1235 . The issue at the trial of the exception is whether, on the face of the petition, the plaintiff is legally entitled to the relief sought. Montalvo v. Sondes, 93-2813, p. 6 (La.5/23/94), 637 So.2d 127, 131 . Louisiana has chosen a system of fact pleading. La. C.C.P. art. 854 cmt. (a); Montalvo at p. 6 , 637 So.2d at 131 . Therefore, it is not necessary for a plaintiff to plead the theory of his case in the petition. Kizer v. Lilly, 471 So.2d 716, 719 (La.1985). However, the mere conclusions of the plaintiff unsupported by facts does not set forth a cause of action. Montalvo at p. 6 , 637 So.2d at 131 . The burden of demo”
34 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]hen the grounds of the objection pleaded by the peremptory exception may be removed by amendment of the petition, the judgment sustaining the exception shall order such amendment within the delay allowed by the court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This matter arises from a dispute between attorneys over fees. After arbitration, the arbitrator awarded plaintiff 50% of the fees in the underlying litigation. Plaintiff then filed a proceeding in the district court to confirm the arbitration. After a contradictory hearing at which both attorneys appeared, the district court rendered judgment on November 19, 2010, confirming the arbitrator's award. Defendant did not move for a new trial, nor did he file a motion and order for appeal. Three months later, on February 9, 2011, defendant filed a petition to annul the judgment of the arbitrator, alleging the arbitrator erred in prohibiting one of defendant's witnesses from testifying during the arbitration, and erred in determining the amount of fees that should be divided. Plaintiff responded by filing an exception of no cause of action. The district court overruled the exception, and the court of appeal denied plaintiff's request for supervisory review. Plaintiff then sought review in this court. In essence, defendant's petition alleges the arbitration award should be annulled because the arbitrator failed to allow one of his witnesses to testify. Such a ground might arguably be a basis for vacating the award under La. R.S. 9:4210(C), which provides an award may be vacated "[w]here the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy , or of any other”
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.