Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 938 SO2D 792 - Lamz v. Wells

Lamz v. Wells’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
3
states following
January 2021
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 2021

2 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

100200620102020decided

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 Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy · 646 So. 2d 859 - Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., Inc. · 390 So. 2d 196 - Cangelosi v. SCHWEGMANN BROS., ETC. · 830 So. 2d 1037 - Lee v. Pennington · 660 So. 2d 17 - Davis v. Borskey

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

  1. “Act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or Louisiana Constitution in connection with a public issue”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or Louisiana Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability of success on the claim.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The intent of Article 971 is to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance and to prevent this participation from being chilled through an abuse of judicial process. Stern v. Doe, 01-0914, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/27/01), 806 So.2d 98, 101 . Article 971 was enacted by the legislature as a procedural device to be used early in legal proceedings to screen out meritless claims brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for redress of grievances. Aymond v. Dupree, 2005-1248, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/12/06), 928 So.2d 721 . Accordingly, Article 971 provides that a cause of action against a person arising from any act in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or Louisiana Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a ^special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability of success on the claim. This special motion to strike is a “specialized defense motion akin to a motion for summary judgment.” See Editor’s Note to La. Code Civ. P. art. 971, citing Lee v. Pennington, 02-0381 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/16/02) , 830 So.2d 1037 , writ denied, 02-2790 (La.1/24/03), 836 So.2d 52 .”
    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.