Thomason v. Thomason’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although the question of alimony was not raised at this time, we note that equal fault by both parties was determined in this proceeding even though it was the wife who obtained the divorce. The fault by each was of a serious nature and an independent contributory cause of the divorce and such that would bar the recovery of alimony under C.C. 160. See Kendrick v. Kendrick, 236 La. 34 , 106 So.2d 707 (1958). In Fulmer [supra], we held that the determination of fault in a separation proceeding is conclusive of pre-separation fault and cannot be relitigated. To the same effect, determination of fault in a proceeding for immediate divorce is conclusive for purposes of permanent alimony following the divorce. Thus, neither party in the instant suit would be entitled to alimony. [Emphasis added].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Helms v. Helms · 362 So. 2d 1164 - Brannon v. Brannon

2. ““The Court of Appeal in the instant case correctly disposed of the issue when it stated: ‘. Appellant, (Mrs. Thomason) having committed adultery, may not prevail merely because she was first to reach the courthouse ...” 349 So.2d [928] at 931.’ “This result is consistent with the broadened procedural rules for reconventional demands enacted by the legislature in 1960. Code of Civil Procedure article 1061 replaced the rule of article 375 of the Code of Practice of 1870 which required the reconventional demand to be ‘connected with and incidental to’ the main action. Article 1061 provides: ‘The defendant in the principal action may assert in a reconventional demand any action which he may have agains't the plaintiff in the principal action ... regardless of connexity between the principal and reconventional demands. (Emphasis added).’ “This change was intended to ‘permit[s] a defendant to urge against the plaintiff any action which he might have.’ Official Revision Comment to C.C.P. 1061. To allow a defendant to assert his claim against the plaintiff only to have it dismissed when the plaintiff proves his or her claim would defeat the purpose of the revision which was to ‘[encourage] the settlement of all disputes between the parties at one time.’ ” (Footnote omitted)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cooper v. Cooper

3. “5 The legislature has already accomplished this result in the area of separations from bed and board by overruling a long line of jurisprudence which disallowed a separation to both parties when there was equal fault. See e. g., Schillaci v. Schillaci, [ 310 So.2d 179 ] supra n. 1, writ denied, [ 313 So.2d 599 ] supra n. 1; Davis v. Davis, [ 258 So.2d 138 ] supra, n. 1; Maynor v. Maynor, 234 So.2d 426 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1970); Wood v. Wood, 227 So.2d 656 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1969). It enacted the new Civil Code article 141, La. Acts 1976, No. 495, ss. 1, which provides in pertinent part: `A separation from bed and board shall be granted although both spouses are mutually at fault in causing the separation.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Post v. Post