158 So. 3d 927 - Keyes v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 783 So. 2d 1282 - American Deposit Ins. Co. v. Myles · Montz v. Theard · 140 So. 3d 253 - Mazzini v. Strathman · 598 So. 2d 582 - Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Appel · Berthelot v. Le Investment, LLC
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“• A contract constitutes the law between the parties. La. C.C. art. 1983. Interpretation of a contract is the determination of the common intent of the parties.” ■ La. C.C. art. 2045. • “When the words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, no further interpretation may be made in search of the parties’ intent.” La. C.C. art. 2046. In such a case, the meaning and intent of the parties to a written contract must be determined as a matter of law from the four corners : of the instrument without resorting to extrinsic evidence. 4 • When the meaning of a contractual provision is doubtful, the provision must be interpreted in light of considerations such as “the nature of the contract, equity, usage, and the conduct of the parties before and after the formation, of the contract.”. La. C.C. art. 2053. • “In case of doubt that cannot be otherwise resolved, a provision in a contract must be interpreted against the party who furnished its text.” La. C.C. art. 2056.”
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.