Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 214 La. 424 - Schaub v. O'Quin

Schaub v. O'Quin’s Empirical Analysis

1948

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
February 1983
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 1983

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

10019481950196019701980decided

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 Johnson v. Johnson · Bodcaw Lumber Co. v. White · Bachino v. Coste · Praegner v. Kinnebrew & Ratcliff · Scheuermann v. De Latour

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. “"In the jurisprudence of this court are to be found many cases involving actions to compel specific performance (of contracts to purchase immovable property) in which the defendants urged defective titles by reason of alleged outstanding interests in third persons who were not parties to the suits. In some of them specific performance was ordered, the court deeming the legal questions raised by the respective proposed vendees to be free of doubt and the objections obviously groundless. In others, however, the relief sought by the plaintiffs was denied; and the denials were not primarily because the court concluded that the titles tendered were actually defective. The decisions were grounded on the theory that third persons, not parties to the actions and unaffected by the judgments to be rendered, could thereafter make claims of a substantial nature against the titles and further subject the defendants to serious litigation." (emphasis supplied.) Id. at 65.”
    2 later decisions 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.