Smith v. Leger’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably 630 So. 2d 741 - Brown v. Drillers, Inc. (1994), Haynsworth v. The Corporation (1997)
3 federal appellate · 48 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 Arceneaux v. Domingue · 421 So. 2d 216 - Leenerts Farms, Inc. v. Rogers · Moak v. American Automobile Insurance Company · 201 So. 2d 136 - Bielkiewicz v. Rudisill · Castle v. Prudhomme Tank Truck Line, Inc.
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A compromise agreement extends only to those matters which the parties expressly intend to settle. La.C.C. art. 3073; Matthews v. Melton Truck Lines, Inc., 310 So.2d 691 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1975). Ordinarily, the meaning and intent of the parties to a written contract (such as a written compromise agreement) must be sought within the four corners of the instrument and cannot be explained or contradicted by parol evidence. La.C.C. art. 2276; Tauzin v. Claitor, 417 So.2d 1304 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1982), writ denied, 422 So.2d 423 (La. 1982). An exception to this rule exists when there is a dispute between the parties as to exactly what matters were intended to be settled by the compromise agreement. La.C.C. art. 3079; Moak v. American Automobile Insurance Company, 242 La. 160 , 134 So.2d 911 (1961); Munna v. Mangano, 404 So.2d 1008 (La. App. 4th Cir.1981).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘A person who signs a written instrument is presumed to know its contents and cannot avoid its obligations by contending that he did not read it, or that it was not explained or that he did not understand it.’ ”) (quoting Smith v. Leger, 439 So.2d 1203 , 1206 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983)); Bonny, 3 F.3d at 160 n. 10; St. Petersburg Bank & Trust Co. v. Boutin, 445 F.2d 1028 , 1032 (5th Cir.1971). 17 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Compromise agreements cannot be attacked for an error in law or for lesion. However, compromise agreements can be contested for errors in calculation, error in the person, fraud, violence or an error on the matter in dispute.”
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.