Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 19 SO2D 279 - Kilbourne v. Hosea

Kilbourne v. Hosea’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
May 2008
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 2008

9 state decisions

501944195019601970198019902000decided

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 Liles v. Pitts · Succession of Miller v. Evans · Jefferson Lake Oil Co. v. Loughridge · Lumpkin v. Reiser Machine Shops · Jacobs v. Jacobs

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is not necessary to produce proof of the indivisibility of property in kind in order that it might be partitioned by licitation where the record shows that the nature and condition of the property is such that it cannot be conveniently divided in kind. Kilbourne v. Hosea, 19 So.2d 279 (La.App. 1st Cir.1944).”
    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.