Cucullu v. Hernandez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 federal appellate · 3 district · 23 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““He against whom a litigious right has been transferred, may get himself released by paying to the transferee the real price of the transfer, together with the interest from its date.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lerner Shops of Louisiana, Inc. v. Reeves · Smith v. Cook

2. ““The law per diversas and Ab Anas-tasio C. Mandate, on which the articles of our Code concerning litigious rights are founded, have no other object than the prevention of unnecessary litigation, which is attained in a great measure by the check they impose on the cupidity of speculators in law suits. They enable the defendant to take the place of the purchaser of the suit against him by paying the price he has paid for it, with interest. Thereby the litigation is ended, and the object of the law attained. But if as the defendant has done in this case, he continues to contest the suit, raises difficulties as to the right of the plaintiff to recover his debt and protracts the litigation, he evidently defeats the very object of the law, and cannot avail himself of the provision which the law has established in his favor for the purpose of terminating litigation. To permit him to do it would be to defeat the very object of the law. Pothier, Contrat de Vente, 596-597. Merlin, Rep. Verbis Droit litigeux.” “It has repeatedly been held by the Supreme Court of Louisiana that the purpose of Article 2652 was to prevent litigation and therefore a defendant who, instead of paying the price of the transfer, contests the suit and prolongs the litigation, defeats the very object of the Article and cannot exercise the privilege it gives. The complainant should have paid or tendered to Hernandez the real price of the transfer with interest from date. He would then have been in a position to cl”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lerner Shops of Louisiana, Inc. v. Reeves

3. ““The evidence to show the facts on which this claim is based cannot be regarded, for there is no averment in the bill to which 'it can be applied. It is not pertinent to any issue in the case.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Trapp