Pfister v. Casso’s Empirical Analysis
1926
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently January 1984 · most notably Monk v. Monk (1962), 403 So. 2d 56 - Curtis v. Curtis (1981)
2 federal appellate · 32 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 Karcher v. Karcher · Kerwin v. Hibernia Insurance · Gahn v. Brown · Fireman's Ins. v. Hava · Succession of Derigny
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The deceased had also a brother, who disappeared more than 20 years before her death' and has never been heard from since. He is made a party to this suit, through a curator ad hoc, as if he had an interest in this property. But he has no interest therein, since he had none when he disappeared, and his very existence was unknown at the time the succession of his sister was opened in his favor. Hence the entire succession devolved exclusively upon his coheirs, subject only to his right to reclaim from them his proportion of the inheritance, should he reappear within 30 years from the death of his sister. [Citing] R. C. C. Arts. 77, 78; Gahn v. Brown, 160 La. 790 , 107 So. 576 ; Succ. of Derigny, 156 La. 146 , 100 So. 251 ; Succession of Derigny, 133 La. 382 , 63 So. 56 ; and, especially, Martinez v. Wall, 107 La. 737 , 31 So. 1023 .” Pfister v. Casso, 161 La. 940 , 109 So. 770 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. Furlong“"... It suffices that he allows the property to be put in the name of the wife, instead of his own, as head of the community, and that he acknowledges that such property belongs to the separate estate of his wife. It is the fact of such acknowledgment, and not the form thereof, which concludes the husband and those claiming under him."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“purchasing for herself in her separate and paraphernal capacity.”
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.