337 So. 2d 894 - Brown v. Globe Tool & Engineering Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The thrust of the California Co. [California Co. v. Price, 234 La. 338 , 99 So.2d 743 (1957)] decision, considered with earlier and later decisions on the subject, is that when the triple identities are present, C.C. art. 2286 (contained in the section on presumptions of the chapter on proof of obligations) controls, but that when the triple identities are not present, a second action may still be barred by estoppel. Since the defense of estoppel by judgment, like the defense of fraud, is an equitable doctrine which cuts across positive law, its applicability must be decided on a case by case basis by an examination and analysis of the underlying facts and circumstances. No absolute or inflexible rules should be formulated as exceptions to the strictly defined codal provision for res judicata. Rather, estoppel by judgment should be applied when the court determines the demands of equity in a particular ease dictate that an already adjudicated issue should not be relitigat-ed and that the parties should be bound by a prior determination.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ugulano v. Allstate Insurance

2. “"Insofar as the exception is based on the doctrine of estoppel by judgment, for the reasons expressed in Bordelon v. Landry, La.App., 278 So.2d 173 , I am of the opinion that doctrine should not judicially be made applicable in this state beyond its presently existing exceptions; and this case is not one of those exceptions."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sutterfield v. Fireman's Fund Am. Ins. Co.