Cloud v. Cloud’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Section 1. There shall be exempt from seizure and sale by any process whatever, except as hereinafter provided, the homestead, bona fide, owned by the debtor and occupied by him, consisting of lands, not exceeding one hundred and sixty (160) acres, buildings and appurtenances, whether rural or urban, of every head of a family, or person having a mother or father or a person or persons dependent on him or her for support; * * * to the total value of not more than Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00). “Provided, that in the case the homestead exceeds Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) in value, the beneficiary shall be entitled to that amount in case of a sale of the homestead under legal process realizes more than that sum; if the sale does not realize more than that sum, over and above all cost and expenses, said sale shall be null and void. “The benefit of this exemption may be claimed by the surviving spouse, or minor child or children, of a deceased beneficiary. (As amended Acts 1932, No. 142, adopted Nov. 8, 1932; Acts 1938, No. 42, adopted Nov. 8, 1938.)””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Engstrom's of Alexandria, Inc. v. Vaughn · Matter of Hanks

2. “It is ordered, adjudged and decreed, that there be judgment in favor of intervenor, Mary W. Carr, and against plaintiff, Ramon Barlow, recognizing and sustaining intervenor's claim to a homestead exemption under the provisions of Louisiana Constitution Article XI, in preference and priority over the claims asserted by plaintiff in this action, as to the following described property, to-wit: Lot One (1) of Block Thirty-eight (38) of the Hamley & Millikin Addition to the Town of Lake Providence (formerly Town of Providence), Louisiana, and; Lots Two (2) and Three (3) of Block Thirty-eight (38) of the Hamley & Millikin Addition to the Town of Lake Providence (formerly Town of Providence), Louisiana. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the sheriff's sale held October 10, 1973, by which the above described property was sold to Captan Jack Wyly be and it is hereby declared null and void; It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed, that intervenor shall be entitled to be paid the sum of $4,000 out of the proceeds of any sheriff's sale of the said property if such sale realizes more than that sum; if any such sale does not realize more than that sum, over and above all costs and expenses, said sale shall be null and void. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed, that all costs relating to the intervention, the sheriff's sale annulled hereby, and this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff-appellee. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed, that this cause be reman”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 292 So. 2d 721 - Barlow v. Estate of Carr

3. ““The homestead exemption is a law of public policy of this state, the object of which ‘is to secure a home beyond the reach of financial misfortune, around which gathers the affection of the family, the greatest incentive to virtue, to honor, and to industry’. [Citations omitted], on the theory that the protection of the family is of at least as paramount importance to the state as the payment of debts. Lafayette Building Association v. Spofford, 221 La. 549 , 59 So.2d 880 ; Hammond State Bank & Trust Co. v. Broderick, 179 La. 693 , 154 So. 739 ; Garner v. Freeman, 118 La. 184 , 42 So. 767 ; Hebert v. Mayer, 48 La.Ann. 938 , 20 So. 170 . As these cases indicate, the homestead exemption is therefore liberally construed in favor of the homesteader. See In re Vincent, D.C.W.D.La.1928, 28 F.2d 396 . “This constitutional exemption, founded on the public policy of this state, is enacted not so much for the protection of the husband as for that of the dependent members of his family; * * “On the other hand, as stated by Mr. (now Chief) Justice Fournet in Acosta v. Whitney Nat. Bank, 214 La. 700 , 38 So.2d 391 , at pages 392-393: “ ‘The provisions of Section 1 of Article XI of the Constitution of 1921 granting to every head of a family the right to have exempt from seizure and sale the homestead, is not self-operative. That right can only be successfully claimed upon proper showing that the debtor is the head of a family or <a person having a mother or father or person or persons ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Engstrom's of Alexandria, Inc. v. Vaughn