Vance v. Ellerbe’s Empirical Analysis
1922
Citation profile
62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently February 2009 · most notably 375 So. 2d 1319 - Corsey v. State, Through Dept. of Corrections (1979), Arnold v. Sun Oil Co. (1949)
62 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 Cox v. Von Ahlefeldt · Brewster v. Hewes · Maloney v. Dewey · Bayhi v. Bayhi · Hamilton v. Hamilton
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But this incapacity is not, in our opinion, absolute, as in the case of minors and married women (formerly), for, as demonstrated by the succeeding articles of the Civil Code, a person of unsound mind, not interdicted, may, under the circumstances therein set forth, make binding contracts. The first paragraph of article 1788, R.C.C., provides: ‘The contract entered into by a person of insane mind, is void as to him, for the want of that consent, which none but persons in possession of their mental faculties can give. It is not the judgment of interdiction, therefore, that creates the incapacity; it is evidence only of its existence, but it is conclusive evidence, and from these principles result the following rules. * * * ’ “Then follow 13 consecutively numbered sections or paragraphs, detailing the circumstances and conditions under which the insane person and his heirs are or are not bound by his acts. Section No. 1 declares: ‘That, after the judgment of interdiction, no other evidence than the interdiction itself is necessary to prove the incapacity of the person, and to invalidate any contract he may have made after the day the petition for interdiction was presented, and that no evidence to show that the act was made during a lucid interval, or to contradict the judgment of interdiction, can be admitted.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ponder v. Pechon
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.