91 So. 3d 317 - Tobin v. Jindal’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

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

1. “During the 2010 Regular Legislative Session, the Louisiana State Senate adopted Senate Resolution 123 (SR 123), which directed defendant, the Louisiana Board of Regents (the Board), to “study the provision of public postsecondary ed ucational opportunities in the New Orleans region, ... and formulate a plan that will make optimal use of all available ... resources, ... and which will allow each student attending such institutions to successfully and efficiently pursue his or her chosen academic path.” The Board was also directed by SR 12B to “submit a written report of its findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Education and the House Committee on Education, not later than March 1, 2011.” The Board began to conduct a study of all the issues in SR 123, as well as the specific issues of a possible merger, consolidation, and transfer of New Orleans region institutions from one system to another. 2 One of the scenarios considered by the Board was the potential merger of Southern University at New Orleans (SUNO) with [¡¡the University of New Orleans (UNO), hereafter referred to as the “SUNO-UNO merger.” Plaintiffs are all students at institutions in the Southern University System. 3 On February 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed suit against the Board and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, in his official capacity, seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and a temporary restraining order (TRO). Plaintiffs sought to enjoin and prohibit the Board from taking any an”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 91 So. 3d 329 - Tobin v. Jindal

2. “17Obviously, plaintiffs can no longer be affected by the Board’s now completed study and SUNO-UNO merger recommendation that the Legislature has already considered and declined to enact. Simply stated, this appeal presents no justiciable controversy and is now moot given the legislative action declining to enact the SUNO-UNO merger as recommended by the Board, as well as the rendition of judgment by the trial court on the merits of plaintiffs’ requested permanent injunction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 So. 3d 1022 - Felder v. Political Firm, L.L.C.