254 So. 2d 299 - Aime v. Hebert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"While the apparent legislative intent was to provide for dissolution of the community between the parties as to the date on which the suit was filed, the statute does not specifically recite whose `rights validly acquired in the interim' are unaffected by the retroactive provision. "If rights acquired by the husband or the wife between the date of the filing of the suit for separation and the date of the judgment are not subject to the retroactive effect of the statute, then there is little reason to make the judgment retroactive. "The only interpretation which gives effect to the entire statute is that the retroactive effect shall be without prejudice to rights validly acquired by third parties in the interim. See XXIII La. Law Review 41, 42 (1963). As between the parties, the community is dissolved as of the date on which the suit was filed."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brent v. Commissioner · 325 So. 2d 674 - Roberts v. Roberts

2. “to rights validly acquired in the interim between commencement of the action and recordation of the judgment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 325 So. 2d 674 - Roberts v. Roberts · 347 So. 2d 938 - Gondrella v. Gondrella

3. “retroactive to the date on which the petition for same was filed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brent v. Commissioner