Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 449 SO2D 670 - Braning v. Braning

Braning v. Braning’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
April 2009
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 2009

17 state decisions

90198419902000decided

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 283 So. 2d 226 - Bernhardt v. Bernhardt · 339 So. 2d 835 - Ducote v. Ducote · Loyacano v. Loyacano · Hodges v. Decoteau · Vidrine v. White

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

  1. “By its very nature, a consent or compromise judgment is a bi-lateral contract whereby the parties adjust their differences by mutual consent, thereby putting an end to litigation (or anticipated litigation) with each party balancing the hope of gain against the fear of loss. Braning, supra, at 672 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"We find no prohibition in the law, and none has been suggested to us, whereby parties cannot agree on permanent alimony prior to the rendering of the divorce decree. Prior to the amendments by Act 627 of 1978 and Act 711 of 1979, La.Civil Code Article 1790 prohibited husband and wife from contracting with each other. However, that prohibition has now been abolished by the above mentioned amendments. Clearly, then, appellant contracted and agreed to pay permanent alimony when, and if the divorce judgment was rendered. He does not deny knowledge of the agreement or the fact that he consented to it. The trial court was correct in ordering that the consent judgment be enforced, and that appellant pay the back alimony due. His (appellant's) proper remedy was to seek a reduction in alimony, which he did and which was denied." (Footnote omitted)”
    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.