State v. Watkins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A valid and final judgment in favor of the plaintiff is conclusive between the same parties and all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and merged in the judgment. La. R.S. 13:4231(1). Furthermore, the record shows that the judgment was paid in full in 1998. In late 2002, California decided to apply nearly all payments to interest and imposed a judgment for more than $58,000 for the same claim previously asserted by California in Louisiana in 1989 and 1990, and which was adjudicated and paid in full. Clearly, the California claim was paid in full and their present action in Louisiana is an attempt to circumvent the prior ruling. The Louisiana Assistant District Attorney's argument that the only thing that can be considered is the consent judgment is like the proverbial ostrich. The situation presented in this case looks, sounds, and walks like res judicata and full payment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 988 So. 2d 176 - State v. Watkins

2. “a defense under the law of this state to the remedy sought”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 988 So. 2d 176 - State v. Watkins