Rachal v. Charrier’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellant assigns the following errors: 1. The trial court erred in holding that, because appellant's proof of claim was not verified, parol evidence was inadmissible to prove appellant's claim; and 2. The trial court erred in disallowing appellant's opposition to the tableau of distribution which omitted her claim for the value of services rendered to the decedent. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1 Appellant argues the requirement the claim be sworn is a mere formality, substantial compliance should suffice because the primary concern of the statute is timely notice (however made) so as to protect the succession from stale and unfounded claims, and the succession representative owes a fiduciary duty to the legatees, heirs, and creditors. La.R.S. 13:3721 permits the admission of parol evidence to prove a claim against the decedent in only four instances, one of which is that within one year of decedent's death, "(t)he claimant has submitted to the succession representative a formal proof of his claim against the succession, as provided in article 3245 of the Code of Civil Procedure." The latter requires a "formal written proof of the claim, sworn to by the claimant." [3] La.R.S. 13:3721 further provides, "[t]he provisions of this section cannot be waived impliedly through the failure of a litigant to object to the admission of evidence which is inadmissible thereunder." Appellant argues the primary concern of La.R.S. 13:3721 is the one-year requirement because it applies to all four ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Anderson-Dunham, Inc. v. Hamilton · 518 So. 2d 1085 - Succession of Larmore

2. “[T]he Code refers to a precise legal definition and procedure which entails the creation of a legal officer, i.e., the role of a prudent administrator who is answerable to the court, hable for damages incident to his failure to act properly, and subject to disqualification, revocation, or removal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 658 So. 2d 746 - Brown v. Bearden

3. “[i]n order to preserve the purpose of La.R.S. 13:3721, the statute must be strictly construed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 518 So. 2d 1085 - Succession of Larmore