241 So. 2d 534 - Wise v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “That certain store house and lot now occupied by George Wise Variety Store and more particularly described in that deed from Ed Lisso & Company, Inc. to Mrs. Mattie Wilkinson, et al, as per deed recorded in Conveyance Book 51, page 214, which property is described as follows, to-wit: A certain lot or tract of land with all improvements thereon, situated in the Town of Coushatta, Red River Parish, Louisiana, and described as follows: beginning at a point on Ringgold Avenue, of property formerly owned by the Red River Farmers Union Warehouse Company, Ltd., a distance of 66.82 feet from the right of way of the La. Ry. & Nav. Company; thence running parallel with said street a distance of 66.82 feet to right of way of said La. Ry. & Nav. Company, thence parallel with said right of way a distance of 123.42 feet; thence in a Westerly direction a distance of 60.06 feet; thence in a Southwesterly direction a distance of 104.16 feet; thence at an angle on a straight line to the point of beginning, and being a portion of the property purchased by the vendor from the Red River Farmers Union Warehouse Company, Ltd., and being the same property acquired by J. T. S. Thomas as per deed in Conveyance Book 40, page 444 of the official records of the Parish of Red River, Louisiana; and by Lisso & Company, Inc. from the said J. T. S. Thomas.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 258 So. 2d 141 - Stanfill v. Johnson

2. ““Parol evidence should not have been admitted to enable the plaintiff to prove that the conveyances under attack were simulations. * * * On the other hand, the defendant appellant, attempting to sustain and to maintain the validity of an authentic conveyance, does not violate the parol evidence rule by showing that the true consideration for the transfers * * * is different from that expressed in the instruments.” At p. 536.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 362 F. Supp. 1110 - Brown v. Womack