212 So. 2d 145 - Patrick v. Patrick’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 1992
6 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 Messner v. Messner · Estopinal v. Estopinal · McCartan v. Filkins · Poole v. Poole
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Appellant contends testimony of private detectives employed by one of the litigants should be carefully considered and accepted with extreme caution and, in order for such evidence to be controlling, it should be substantially corroborated by other evidence. We are in full accord with this contention and think it is a fair statement of our law. However, such testimony should not be rejected except in those instances where it is lacking in actual probative value. McCartan v. Filkins, 134 La. 795 , 64 So. 717 (1914); Poole v. Poole, 189 So.2d 75 , La.App. 1 Cir. (1966)." (Emphasis supplied.)”
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.