170 So. 3d 253 - Rousset v. Rousset’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 694 So. 2d 312 - Nungesser v. Nungesser · 888 So. 2d 291 - Millet v. Millet · 105 So. 3d 892 - Short v. Short · 985 So. 2d 1285 - Nelson v. Nelson · 930 So. 2d 51 - Sutherlin v. Sutherlin
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 consent judgment is a bilateral contract wherein the parties adjust their differences by mutual consent and thereby put an end to a lawsuit with each party balancing the hope of gain against the fear of loss. LSA-C.C. art. 3071. As such, it should be governed by the same rules of construction that apply to contracts. Nelson v. Nelson, 08-85 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/19/08) , 985 So.2d 1285, 1290 . A compromise agreement which forms the basis for a consent judgment gets its binding force and effect from the consent of the parties. The interpretation of •the consent judgment is the determination of the common intent of the parties. LSA-C.C. art. 2045; Nungesser v. Nungesser, 95-2298 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/28/96) , 694 So.2d 312, 314 . The meaning and intent of the parties is ordinarily determined from the four corners of the instrument. Millet v. Millet, 04-406 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/26/04) , 888 So.2d 291, 293 . Each provision in the contract is interpreted in light of the other provisions so that each is given the meaning suggested by the contract |sas a whole. When the words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, the intent of the parties is to be determined by the words of the contract. LSA-C.C. art. 2046; Sutherlin v. Sutherlin, 05-535 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/3/06) , 930 So.2d 51, 53 . When the language of a contract is ambiguous it is proper to go outside the four corners of the instrument and use extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent. Nelson v.”
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.