Anthony v. Anthony’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. “`Counsel are mistaken in their conception of the nature of the proceeding taken by Mrs. Williams. She was not attempting to obtain a monied judgment—that judgment, i.e., for alimony, was already in existence, having been rendered as an incident to the divorce proceeding. The use of the rule to make the delinquent payments executory was conformable to a method of practice which has been sanctioned by our courts in numerous cases. See Snow v. Snow, 188 La. 660 , 177 So. 793 (where all of the prior jurisprudence on this question is reviewed); Cotton v. Wright, 193 La. 520 , 190 So. 665 , and the recent case of Erdal v. Erdal, La. App., 26 So.2d 377 , where a similar question was raised by the defendant husband. `The rationale of the above cited authorities is that, since a judgment for alimony is payable at fixed periods, it may be difficult, in cases where the husband has failed to discharge his full duty and has made irregular payments, to determine the exact amount for which a writ of fieri facias may be issued. Hence, the court has indicated that a rule, similar to the one in the instant case, is proper in order that the delinquent payments may be computed into a lump sum as a guide to the Clerk and as a basis upon which execution can be issued.' "Thus, the Supreme Court firmly rejected the idea that the judgment making past due alimony executory is a money judgment and treated the action as a procedural remedy for the wife to accomplish execution of her original judgment."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 409 So. 2d 1245 - Goldstein v. Goldstein

2. “"We find only one reported decision in which this question was presented, Smith v. Smith, 257 So.2d 446 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1972). There the court treated such an action to make past due alimony executory as an attempt to obtain a money judgment and held that personal service or attachment of defendant's property was necessary under LSA-C.C.P. Arts. 6 and 9. That Court rejected the theory that the action to make past due alimony executory was incidental to the original divorce proceedings and affirmed The Family Court's maintenance of an exception to the jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 409 So. 2d 1245 - Goldstein v. Goldstein