Beatty v. Vining’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably McCarroll v. McCarroll (1997), Fox v. Fox (1965)
1 federal appellate · 34 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 Housing Authority v. Boudwine · Waterman v. Tidewater Associated Oil Co. · Phillips v. Phillips · Sanderson v. Frost · Harvey v. Richard
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Art. 1861. The law, however, will not release a person of full age, and who is under no incapacity, against the effect of his voluntary contracts, on account of such implied error or imposition, except in the two following cases: 1. In partition where there is a difference in the value of the portions to more than the amount of one-fourth to the prejudice of one or [of] the parties; 2. In sales of immovable property”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"They may even be rescinded, on account of lesion; and, as equality is the base of partitions, it suffices to cause the rescission, that such lesion be of more than one-fourth of the true value of the property."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"There was no written acknowledgment or promise to pay so as to take the debt out of prescription already accrued, as required by the provisions of LSA-C.C. Art. 2278. It has been held that "* * * a mere acknowledgment is not sufficient for the purpose (to renounce an acquired prescription), even if accompanied by payment on account of the debt. There must be a new promise made to pay the debt in order to nullify an accrued prescription. * * *' (Parentheses and emphasis supplied.) Burdin v. Burdin, 171 La. 7 , 129 So. 651, 655 . See, also: Succession of Slaughter, 108 La. 492 , 32 So. 379 , 58 L.R.A. 408 ; Sullivan v. St. Anna's Chapel, 168 La. 383 , 122 So. 118 ; Hobson v. Edelston, La. App.Orleans, 1943, 13 So.2d 141, 143-144 ; Glass v. Holoman, La.App. 2nd Cir., 1940, 197 So. 438 (writs denied)."”
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.