25 So. 2d 641 - Bennett v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 10 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This case tenders for solution a question not new in the jurisprudence of this state. A question of fact only is involved. If we were bound to determine the issue from the number of witnesses who testified for plaintiff, perforce judgment would go for him, but in solving such a question the number of witnesses for or against a litigant need not necessarily be controlling. The written instrument, as evidence, goes far toward sustaining its own efficacy. This evidence, aided and supported by defendant’s own testimony, and attending facts and circumstances, warrants application to the facts of this case the rules of evidence announced in the following cases: “Franks v. Davis Bros. Lumber Co., Ltd., 146 La. 803, 809 , 84 So. 101 , 103 wherein it was held: “ ‘To say the least, we do not think that he has established the alleged fraud and misrepresentation to such an extent as to relieve himself from the effect of having signed the deed without reading it, even granting that he did so. In the absence of a reasonably strong showing of fraud or error, the document which the parties signed will be presumed to constitute the agreement between them. Watson v. Planters’ Bank, 22 La.Ann. 14 ; Allen, West & Bush v. Whetstone, 35 La.Ann. 846 .’ “Rodgers v. S. H. Bolinger Co., Ltd., 149 La. 545 , 89 So. 688 , in which it was said and held, in discussing fraud and error in written contracts, that: ‘Equity may reform even contracts unambiguous in their terms, on clear proof that, through frau”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cannon v. Hunt

2. “The essential difference between a sale of a royalty interest and a sale of a mineral interest in land leased for minerals, is that the purchaser of the royalty interest receives nothing under the lease unless profitable production is obtained, whereas under a mineral sale the purchaser, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary, is titled to receive his proportionate part of renewal rentals under the lease and like proportion of the price of subsequent lease or leases on the land and renewals paid thereunder.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 26 So. 2d 845 - Union Sulphur Co. v. Lognion