Harvey v. Richard’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably Little v. Haik (1964), Beatty v. Vining (1962)
4 federal appellate · 74 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 Parker v. Ohio Oil Co. · Ceromi v. Harris · Thomas v. Blair · 33 La. Ann. 744 - Heirs of Wood v. Nicholls · 23 Ala. App. 258 - Johnson v. State
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The cases holding that estoppels are not favored by our courts are legion in our jurisprudence.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“Mere silence of itself will not raise an estoppel. To make the silence of the party operate as an estoppel of the circumstances must have been such as to render it his duty to speak, and there must also be an opportunity to speak. And it is essential that he should have had knowledge of the facts, and that the adverse party should have been ignorant of the truth, and have been misled into doing that which he would not have done but for such silence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`The authorities are not agreed in respect to the question whether the knowledge of a party respecting the purport and effect of an instrument may be presumed from the sole fact of his having attested it. Some of the earlier English cases and a few American jurisdictions have taken the position that such knowledge may be presumed from the sole fact of attestation. The earlier English doctrine was subsequently disapproved by Lord Chancellor Thurlow. Moreover, the preponderance of authority, so far as the American cases are concerned, is distinctly in favor of the view that the fact of a person having attested an instrument does not preclude him from asserting a right affected by its provisions, unless it is shown by independent affirmative evidence that he was cognizant, actually or constructively, of those provisions.' 19 Am.Jur. 787, Section 132. See, also, 21 C.J. 1159, Section 162. "The Louisiana jurisprudence is in accordance with the weight of authority in the United States. See Brian v. Bonvillain, 52 La.Ann. 1794 , 28 So. 261 ; Brian v. Bonvillain, 111 La. 441 , 35 So. 632 ; and Nelson, Curtis & Nelson v. Bridgeman, 152 La. 190 , 92 So. 855 . "In the first case the court held, as expressed in its syllabus, that the recording of an act in which third parties contracted with each other with reference to the rights in which an attesting witness might have an interest `does not per se convey constructive knowledge to the general public of any personal interest of the witn”
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.