Rittiner v. Sinclair’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably 445 So. 2d 88 - Heyl v. Heyl (1984), 449 So. 2d 1192 - Creech v. Creech (1984)
29 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 348 So. 2d 75 - Pearce v. Pearce · Kendrick v. Kendrick · Succession of Morgan · Davieson v. Trapp · 301 So. 2d 622 - Fulmer v. Fulmer
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ll that the law requires [for the validity of an authentic act] is that the notary and witnesses be present, C.C. 2328, when each contracting party signs the act, C.C. 2234, and that notary and witnesses themselves also sign the act, although not necessarily at the time that any party signs it. Accordingly, the act before us is not invalid because of the simple facts that the husband and wife in this case did not execute the act in the presence of each other, and that the notary and witnesses did not sign the act at the time that one (or either) party signed it. Our basic reasoning is that substance should prevail over form unless the law unmistakably requires a contrary result. Here the mature spouses-to-be must be presumed to have desired and consented to the exact agreement contained in the written instrument. The law only requires that the agreement be "made by an act before a notary and two witnesses," C.C. 2328: such an act is an authentic act, C.C. 2234, "executed before a notary public ..., in the presence of two witnesses...." Nowhere does the law expressly require that the notary and the witnesses sign the act in the presence of the parties,....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"... alimony should not be irrebuttably preempted on a premise of such a disjointed, nebulous concept as `mutual fault'. What is, in most cases, nothing more or less than mutual disillusionment should not summarily deprive either party of their justiciable right to seek alimony."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““... It is not the quantity of alcohol but rather the extent and habitualness of intoxication that constitute ‘habitual in temperance’ within La.C.C. 138 and therefore ‘fault’ within C.C. 160 which would defeat a wife’s entitlement to alimony. ...””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Holmgren v. Kaigle
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.