Hollier v. Galtier’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 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. “"Use of depositions A. At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the Louisiana Code of Evidence applied as though the witnesses were then present and testifying, may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof, in accordance with any of the following provisions: . . . . . (3) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: (a) That the witness is unavailable; (b) That the witness resides at a distance greater than one hundred miles from the place of trial or hearing or is out of the state, unless it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the deposition; or (c) Upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow the deposition to be used."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bordelon v. Drake · Davlin v. Smalley

2. “A third party dealing with property is charged with knowledge revealed by recorded instruments affecting property. Blevins v. Manufacturers Record Publishing Co., [ 235 La. 708 ], 105 So.2d 392 (La.S.Ct.195[7]). `It is also the law that all persons have constructive notice of the existence and contents of a recorded instrument affecting immovable property ( United Gas Public Service Company v. Roy, et al., 147 So. 705 (La.App. 2d Cir.1933)); and where such an instrument contains language that fairly puts a purchaser on inquiry as to the title and he does not avail himself of the means and facilities at hand to obtain knowledge of the true facts he is to be considered as having bought at his own risk as having bought at his own risk and peril.' Breaux-Renoudet Cypress-Lumber Company v. Shadel et al., [[5]2 La. Ann.2094], 28 So. 292 (La.S.Ct.1900); Hasslocher, et al. v. Recknagel, et al., 160 So.2d 421 (La.App. 2d Cir.1964); Brown v. Johnson, 11 So.2d 713 (La. App. 2d Cir.194[2]); Judice-Henry-May Agency, Inc. v. Franklin, 376 So.2d 991 (La.App. 1st Cir.19[79]).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ridgedell v. Succession of Kuyrkendall

3. “All errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition are waived unless written objection is promptly served upon the party giving the notice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bordelon v. Drake