134 So. 2d 114 - Jackson v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1983
6 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 Prieto v. Succession of Prieto · Heatwole v. Stansbury · 7 La. Ann. 152 - Delamour v. Roger · Sims v. Matassa · 44 La. Ann. 61 - Succession of Llula
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Petitioners show that Lot `A', above described, was acquired by John Wright, Sr., * * * and that the purported vendees named in said deed were John Wright, Sr., and Louella Wright, husband and wife."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In the absence of a marital partnership, the deeds purporting to transfer the property to such non-existent entity are of no avail to one claiming an interest therein as a co-partner. Therefore, the rules established by our jurisprudence relative to the establishment of claims to property by concubines and paramours apply. We do not deem it necessary to discuss this question in any great detail. As it relates to the problem at hand, we simply state that concubines, although under certain disabilities in the interests of good morals, are not, ipso facto, prevented from asserting claims arising out of business transactions with their paramours which were independent of the concubinage or meretricious relationships; but the claimant must produce strict and conclusive proof before she can be afforded relief. Delamour v. Roger, 1852, 7 La. Ann. 152 ; Succession of Llula, 1892, 44 La.Ann. 61 , 10 So. 406 ; Prieto v. Succession of Prieto, 1928, 165 La. 710 , 115 So. 911 ; Heatwole v. Stansbury, 1947, 212 La. 685 , 33 So.2d 196 ; Sims v. Matassa, La.App. 1 Cir., 1941, 200 So. 666 . Therefore, any rights the defendant might have to the property could only be successfully asserted by proof of facts and circumstances bringing her within a favorable situation under the various rules delineated in the cases cited above, in which case it would be a matter of special defense and could only be asserted on the merits."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.