Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Curtis v. Curtisgreen2 sentences2019Curtis v. Curtis, 403 So. 2d 56, 59 ( La. 1981); see also Monk v. Monk, 243 La. 429 , 144 So.2d 384 ( 1962). 1987Curtis v. Curtis, 403 So.2d 56, 59 (La.1981); Monk v. Monk, 243 La. 429 , 144 So.2d 384 (1962). | 2 | 2 |
Monk v. Monkgreen2 sentences2019Curtis v. Curtis, 403 So. 2d 56, 59 ( La. 1981); see also Monk v. Monk, 243 La. 429 , 144 So.2d 384 ( 1962). 2019Curtis v. Curtis, 403 So. 2d 56, 59 ( La. 1981); see also Monk v. Monk, 243 La. 429 , 144 So.2d 384 ( 1962). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Levatino v. Levatino
green
1 sentence1993Levatino, 506 So.2d at 862-63 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Betz v. Riviere
green
2 sentences1981Betz v. Riviere, 211 La. 43 , 29 So.2d 465 (1947); Rousseau v. Rousseau, 209 La. 428 , 24 So.2d 676 (1946); Pfister v. Casso, 161 La. 940 , 109 So. 770 (1926); Maguire v. Maguire, 40 La.Ann. 579 , 4 So. 492 (1888); and Kerwin v. Hibernia Insurance Co., 35 La.Ann. 33 (1883). 1981Betz v. Riviere, 211 La. 43 , 29 So.2d 465 (1947); Rousseau v. Rousseau, 209 La. 428 , 24 So.2d 676 (1946); Pfister v. Casso, 161 La. 940 , 109 So. 770 (1926); Maguire v. Maguire, 40 La.Ann. 579 , 4 So. 492 (1888); and Kerwin v. Hibernia Insurance Co., 35 La.Ann. 33 (1883). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Pfister v. Casso
green
2 sentences1981Betz v. Riviere, 211 La. 43 , 29 So.2d 465 (1947); Rousseau v. Rousseau, 209 La. 428 , 24 So.2d 676 (1946); Pfister v. Casso, 161 La. 940 , 109 So. 770 (1926); Maguire v. Maguire, 40 La.Ann. 579 , 4 So. 492 (1888); and Kerwin v. Hibernia Insurance Co., 35 La.Ann. 33 (1883). 1981Betz v. Riviere, 211 La. 43 , 29 So.2d 465 (1947); Rousseau v. Rousseau, 209 La. 428 , 24 So.2d 676 (1946); Pfister v. Casso, 161 La. 940 , 109 So. 770 (1926); Maguire v. Maguire, 40 La.Ann. 579 , 4 So. 492 (1888); and Kerwin v. Hibernia Insurance Co., 35 La.Ann. 33 (1883). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Rousseau v. Rousseau
green
2 sentences1981Betz v. Riviere, 211 La. 43 , 29 So.2d 465 (1947); Rousseau v. Rousseau, 209 La. 428 , 24 So.2d 676 (1946); Pfister v. Casso, 161 La. 940 , 109 So. 770 (1926); Maguire v. Maguire, 40 La.Ann. 579 , 4 So. 492 (1888); and Kerwin v. Hibernia Insurance Co., 35 La.Ann. 33 (1883). 1981Betz v. Riviere, 211 La. 43 , 29 So.2d 465 (1947); Rousseau v. Rousseau, 209 La. 428 , 24 So.2d 676 (1946); Pfister v. Casso, 161 La. 940 , 109 So. 770 (1926); Maguire v. Maguire, 40 La.Ann. 579 , 4 So. 492 (1888); and Kerwin v. Hibernia Insurance Co., 35 La.Ann. 33 (1883). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Kerwin v. Hibernia Insurance
neutral
1 sentence1981Betz v. Riviere, 211 La. 43 , 29 So.2d 465 (1947); Rousseau v. Rousseau, 209 La. 428 , 24 So.2d 676 (1946); Pfister v. Casso, 161 La. 940 , 109 So. 770 (1926); Maguire v. Maguire, 40 La.Ann. 579 , 4 So. 492 (1888); and Kerwin v. Hibernia Insurance Co., 35 La.Ann. 33 (1883). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Maguire v. Maguire
neutral
1 sentence1981Betz v. Riviere, 211 La. 43 , 29 So.2d 465 (1947); Rousseau v. Rousseau, 209 La. 428 , 24 So.2d 676 (1946); Pfister v. Casso, 161 La. 940 , 109 So. 770 (1926); Maguire v. Maguire, 40 La.Ann. 579 , 4 So. 492 (1888); and Kerwin v. Hibernia Insurance Co., 35 La.Ann. 33 (1883). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Succession of Seals
green
1 sentence1963Finally, we think there is applicable here the doctrine expressed by our Supreme Court in the recent case of Succession of Stokes Seals, La. 150 So.2d 13 , in which the court stated: "`The genius of our law does not favor the claims of those who have long slept on their rights and who, after years of inertia, conveying an assurance of acquiescence in a given state of things, suddenly wake up at the welcome vision of an unexpected advantage and invoke the aid of the courts for relief, under the effect of a newly discovered technical error in some ancient transaction or settlement.' Lafitte, Duf | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Lafitte, Dufilho & Co. v. Godchaux
green
1 sentence1963Finally, we think there is applicable here the doctrine expressed by our Supreme Court in the recent case of Succession of Stokes Seals, La. 150 So.2d 13 , in which the court stated: "`The genius of our law does not favor the claims of those who have long slept on their rights and who, after years of inertia, conveying an assurance of acquiescence in a given state of things, suddenly wake up at the welcome vision of an unexpected advantage and invoke the aid of the courts for relief, under the effect of a newly discovered technical error in some ancient transaction or settlement.' Lafitte, Duf | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Sun Oil Company v. Roger
green
2 sentences1963Finally, we think there is applicable here the doctrine expressed by our Supreme Court in the recent case of Succession of Stokes Seals, La. 150 So.2d 13 , in which the court stated: "`The genius of our law does not favor the claims of those who have long slept on their rights and who, after years of inertia, conveying an assurance of acquiescence in a given state of things, suddenly wake up at the welcome vision of an unexpected advantage and invoke the aid of the courts for relief, under the effect of a newly discovered technical error in some ancient transaction or settlement.' Lafitte, Duf 1963Finally, we think there is applicable here the doctrine expressed by our Supreme Court in the recent case of Succession of Stokes Seals, La. 150 So.2d 13 , in which the court stated: "`The genius of our law does not favor the claims of those who have long slept on their rights and who, after years of inertia, conveying an assurance of acquiescence in a given state of things, suddenly wake up at the welcome vision of an unexpected advantage and invoke the aid of the courts for relief, under the effect of a newly discovered technical error in some ancient transaction or settlement.' Lafitte, Duf | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.