275 So. 2d 459 - Cox v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 1998
6 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 A. Wilbert's Sons Lumber & Shingle Co. v. Ricard · 53 So. 2d 520 - Skelley v. Accounts Supervision Co. · Gunn v. Credit Service Corporation · Lafourche Ice & Shrimp Co. v. Gilbeau
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) The following income or property of a debtor is exempt from seizure under any writ, mandate, or process whatsoever: [[Image here]] (2) That property necessary to the exercise of a trade, calling, or profession by which he earns his livelihood, which shall be limited to the following: (a) Tools. (b) Instruments. (e) Books. (d) One pickup truck with a gross weight of less than three tons, or one motor vehicle, which does not possess any of the characteristics of a luxury automobile as defined under R.S. 39:365(B) which also shall not be a vehicle used solely for transportation to and from the place at which the debtor earns his livelihood; and (e) One utility trailer.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Racca · Pickett v. Miller““It was the trial judge’s conclusion that .the statute is intended to exempt only the tools and instruments by which the debt- or earned a substantial portion of his livelihood, and he found that Cox had not sustained his burden of proving that fishing was his principal occupation or that any substantial portion of his income was derived from the sale of fish caught by him. With this conclusion we cannot agree. The statute itself reads ... in whole or in part and the word part is in no way modified by the word substantial, major, or any others which might imply a necessary percentage.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Matter of Hanks
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.