Powell v. Treat’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * In a long line of cases beginning with Edwards v. Edwards, 29 La. Ann. 597 (1877), the courts of this State have consistently held that in a suit to annul the legal effect of a prior judgment, such judgment cannot be successfully urged as res judicata to itself. The court in the Edwards case ( 29 La.Ann. at 599 ) observed: `... Otherwise, the action of nullity would be a farce and a mockery, since the existence of the judgment attacked (which alone gives the right and the occasion to the action of nullity) would be itself a bar to proceedings to annul it. In other words, the same fact, to wit: the existence of the judgment, would be at one and the same time the foundation and destruction of a right of action.' See, also: Holbrook v. Holbrook, 32 La.Ann. 13 (1880); Morrisey v. Vazquez, 168 La. 433 , 122 So. 281 (1929); Lirette v. Lirette, 176 La. 368 , 145 So. 773 (1933); Cook v. Morgan, 142 So. 279 (La.App., 2d Cir. 1932); State ex rel. Sunseri v. Thoman, 154 So.2d 480 (La.App., 1st Cir. 1963); Grant v. Securities Finance Company, 173 So.2d 356 (La.App., 1st Cir. 1965). "Thus, as pointed out in Grant v. Securities Finance Company, supra, `It is axiomatic that a judgment cannot be res judicata to a suit to annul it.' ( 173 So.2d at p. 357 .)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Galway v. Dudenhefer · 408 So. 2d 1186 - Villanueva v. Schwall