Ackerman v. Larner’s Empirical Analysis
1906
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1988 · most notably Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), Boxwell v. Department of Highways (1943)
39 state decisions
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 Hoffmann v. Ackermann · Lagrange v. Barre · Factors & Traders' Insurance v. New Harbor Protection Co. · 3 La. Ann. 328 - Vaughan v. Christine · Harris v. Wafer
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Lagrange v. Barre et al., supra [ 11 Rob. 302 ], the plaintiff had, by authentic act, donated his land and slaves to the husband and father of the defendants, without, as he alleged, reserving anything for his subsistence, on the condition, among others, that the donee should furnish him with food, bedding, clothes, fire, lights, and medicine, free of any charge, during his life, and, more than five years afterwards, he brought suit against the widow and heirs of the donee to annul the contract, on the ground that he had thereby devested himself of all his property, to which action the defendants pleaded the prescription of five years established by Civ.Code, art. 3507, now Rev.Civ.Code, art. 3542, against actions for the nullity of contracts, testaments, or other acts. In dealing with the question thus presented, this court, inter alia, held that, the contract having been entered into in violation of a prohibitory law, enacted in the interest of public order, was absolutely void, and that the nullity could not be cured by the prescription pleaded. See, also, Harris v. Wafer, 113 La. 822 , 37 South. 768 .” (Ackerman v. Larner, 116 La. 101 , 40 So. 581 , 587 [1906])”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. Collier“Estoppel, as predicated upon the maxim 'nemo allegans suam turpitudinem audiendus est,' it may be said, is a doctrine which forms part of the policy of the law by reason of its recognition by the courts, but, as the law itself is the paramount authority as to its policy, it follows that in those matters concerning which it speaks definitely, it cannot be controlled by an estoppel, which is but the creature of its creature. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““A donation shall in no case divest the owner of all his property; he must reserve for himself enough for subsistence; if he does not do it, the donation is null for the whole.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jenkins v. Svarva
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.