Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently October 2005 · most notably Wyatt v. Fulrath (1965), Succession of Daste (1969)
66 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 Kelly v. Kelly · Cusimano v. Ferrara · Peyton v. Roth · King v. Atkins · First Nat. Bank of Ruston v. Jones
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * Since contracts between spouses are specifically forbidden by Articles 1790 and 2446 of the Civil Code, save for the three purposes detailed in Article 2446, it follows that any husband and wife who attempt to contract in violation of those restrictions do so in frudem legis. * * *." 3. A warranty deed divest the seller of title, where it is shown that valid consideration were paid to him, and that an exparte document placed on record by his vendee without his knowledge cannot affect his warranty, and his heirs, accepting his succession are likewise bound by his warranty, under the principle of estoppel by warranty.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“"[S]imulation, because of its nature, can usually be proven only by indirect and circumstantial evidence (Summers & Bannin v. Clarke, 32 La.Ann. 670 ; King v. Atkins, 33 La.Ann. 1057 ; Succession of Dickson, 37 La.Ann. 795 ), so that, if one alleging a simulation produces evidence of circumstances which create highly reasonable doubts or suspicions as to the honesty of the transaction, a prima facie case is considered as having been made out, and the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant to show that a valid sale existed. New Orleans Acid & Fertilizer Co. v. O. Guillory & Co., 117 La. 821 , 42 So. 329 ; Leon Godchaux Co. v. DiMaggio, 133 La. 199 , 62 So. 631 ; First National Bank of Ruston v. Jones, 186 La. 269 , 172 So. 155 ; Howard v. Howard, La.App., 96 So.2d 345 ." Smith v. Smith, 239 La. 688 , 119 So.2d 827, 831 (1960).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Art. 12. Whatever is done in contravention of a prohibitory law, is void, although the nullity be not formally directed.”
3 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.