Slater v. Culpepper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

61 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"... Under our law the wife, unlike the husband, has the absolute right to restitution for her paraphernal effects and their fruits, either delivered to her husband or delivered for use to the community, save in instances governed by Article 2389 of the Civil Code, which is not applicable here. In the case of the husband, it is incumbent upon him to establish that his separate property has been employed to enhance the community at its dissolution. Munchow v. Munchow, 136 La. 753 , 67 So. 819 ; Vicknair v. Terracina, 168 La. 417 , 122 So. 276 ; Succession of Provost, 190 La. 30 , 181 So. 802 and Abunza v. Olivier, 230 La. 445 , 88 So.2d 815 ...." (Emphasis added).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Downs v. Downs · Reynolds v. Reynolds

2. ““ * * * In their application for a rehearing, defendants disputed the correctness of our holding, submitting that the fact that the husband becomes the wife’s agent in handling her separate estate does not necessarily warrant the conclusion that he is its administrator. In support of this position, counsel cite the following cases: Miller v. Handy, 33 La.Ann. 160 ; Stauffer, Macready & Co. v. Morgan, 39 La.Ann. 632 , 2 So. 98 ; In re Leeds & Company, 49 La.Ann. 501 , 21 So. 617 ; Colvin v. Johnston, 104 La. 655 , 29 So. 274 ; Paul v. Arnoult, 164 La. 841 , 114 So. 706 and Guss v. Mathews, 179 La. 1033 , 155 So. 765 . “These adjudications recognize that it is not incompatible with the wife’s personal and sole administration of her paraphernal property to appoint her own husband as her agent for the purpose of that administration. And it is tersely stated in Paul v. Arnoult, in holding, under the particular facts there presented, that the husband was merely acting as agent of his wife and, therefore, her separate property was not under his administration, that: “ ‘ * * * Such a case is presented only when the husband, with the consent of the wife, uses the separate estate of the wife for his own benefit or that of the community. It is not presented when the husband acts merely as the agent of his wife and for her benefit. Cf. Miller v. Handy, 33 La.Ann. 160, 164 . So that the question is not so much by whom the property was physically managed as for whose benefit was it so mana”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Slater v. Culpepper · 219 F. Supp. 947 - Whited v. United States

3. “"The fruits of the paraphernal property of the wife, wherever the property be located and however administered, whether natural, civil, including interest, dividends and rents, or from the result of labor, fall into the conjugal partnership, if there exists a community of acquets and gains; unless the wife, by written instrument, shall declare that she reserves all of such fruits for her own separate use and benefit and her intention to administer such property separately and alone. The said instrument shall be executed before a Notary Public and two witnesses and duly recorded in the Conveyance Records of the Parish where the community is domiciled. "If there is no community of gains, each party enjoys, as he chooses, that which comes to his hand; but the fruits and revenues which are existing at the dissolution of the marriage, belong to the owner of the things which produce them."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 326 So. 2d 551 - Guilott v. Guilott · 161 So. 2d 298 - Vining v. Beatty