433 So. 2d 761 - Thieneman v. Kahn’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 368 So. 2d 984 - Hall v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Co. · Doucet v. Index Geophysical Survey Corp. · New Orleans Bank & Trust Co. v. City of New Orleans · Valhi, Inc. v. Zapata Corp. · Salim v. Louisiana State Board of Education
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As to the admission of parol evidence, we find that the trial judge was correct in allowing the defendant to testify on the alleged misrepresentations; however, we disagree with his conclusions from the testimony. Where misrepresentations or fraud are alleged as in the case before us parol evidence is admissible to establish whether or not such allegations are true..... Parol evidence is also admissible to determine whether a written contract accurately represents a mutual agreement. The court in Valhi, Inc. v. Zapata Corp., 365 So.2d 867 (La.App. 4th Cir.1978), said at 870: "... Parol evidence is not offered to vary the terms of the written instrument but to show that the writing does not express the true intent or agreement of the parties." Thieneman v. Kahn, 433 So.2d 761 (La.App. 5 Cir.1983).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... Parol evidence is not offered to vary the terms of the written instrument but to show that the writing does not express the true intent or agreement of the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.