Rives v. Starcke’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 state decisions

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

1. “"It is well settled that, although the filing of a demand in reconvention by the defendant in a suit cannot prevent the plaintiff's discontinuing his suit at any time before a judgment is rendered, the discontinuance after the demand in reconvention has been filed does not prevent the defendant from proceeding with the prosecution of his demand in reconvention to a final judgment. * * *"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2 So. 2d 480 - Alfonso v. Ruiz · 125 So. 2d 241 - Resweber v. Jacob

2. “"The judge, in this case, no doubt, would have allowed the plaintiffs to discontinue their suit on paying the costs, with reservation of the right of the defendants to have a final judgment rendered on their plea of prescription,—if the plaintiffs would have been satisfied with such a ruling on the defendants' objection. That would have allowed the plaintiffs to renew their suit if the judge should have decided afterwards that the plea of prescription was not sustained by the evidence which had been adduced. What the plaintiffs were demanding, in their motion to discontinue, was the right to discontinue not only their suit for recognition of the title which they claimed but also the demand of the defendants for recognition of the title which they claimed by prescription; so that, in the event of a new suit, the plaintiffs in this case would have another chance to defeat the defendants' plea of prescription."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Breffeilh v. Breffeilh

3. ““The defendants, without answering the suit or denying in any way the facts alleged in the plaintiffs’ petition, pleaded that they, the defendants, had acquired title by prescription, under article 3478 of the Civil Code, by having possessed the land for a period exceeding ten years, under a deed which was acquired in good faith and was sufficient in form to transfer the title for the land. The plea of prescription, being the only matter at issue, was regularly fixed for trial and in its turn was taken up and tried, with the defendants in the suit bearing the burden of proof of the facts alleged in their plea.” (Emphasis ours)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 285 So. 2d 253 - Montgomery v. Breaux